On 07/22/2013 08:48 AM, Jeremy Bicha wrote:
On 21 July 2013 20:22, The Wanderer <wande...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
I'm saying that it looks to me as if the lock-in to systemd would
be even stronger than the lock-in to sysvinit, and might well
extend to the point of even making it harder to implement another
new alternative in the first place.
So let's never switch to anything better than what we have now unless
we also support 1 or 2 alternatives simultaneously just to be safe.
/s
That's not really what I'm saying, though part of me thinks it doesn't
sound like an inherently bad idea.
I suppose what I"m trying to say is mostly... if we do switch to
something with the potential to "make things worse" in the lock-in
department, make sure that we do it with our eyes wide open, with full
awareness of the fact that it could make things worse, and with due
consideration of how to manage and possibly mitigate that.
The reason I brought it up in the first place is that even among all the
other objections being raised, I hadn't seen this aspect of a potential
negative mentioned at all, and I didn't (and don't) want to see things
go forward without its being taken into account. If it *is* taken
properly into account, that's another matter.
--
The Wanderer
Warning: Simply because I argue an issue does not mean I agree with any
side of it.
Every time you let somebody set a limit they start moving it.
- LiveJournal user antonia_tiger
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/51ed3654.7080...@fastmail.fm
