On 11/24/2014 1:00 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: > Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 11/24/2014 8:54 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: >>> Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>> On 11/24/2014 2:56 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote: >>>> <snip> >>>>>> Yes, and while the Linux community continues, Debian will lose a >>>>>> lot of >>>>>> dedicated users due to this decision. Possibly another fork, or >>>>>> possibly another distro. But Debian will lose users. >>>>> 1. At best that's pure speculation. With all due respect to Gypsy Rose >>>>> Lee (who is really just a naughty boy), some of us "engineer types" >>>>> place little stock in soothsaying. >>>>> >>>> It is more than speculation. Read the posts here - some people >>>> (including me) are already looking for alternatives. And so are many >>>> companies I know of who have looked at jessie. >>>> >>>>> 2. It's false logic to conclude *only* losses from change (and >>>>> duplicitous to deny that systemd is your only choice) - it >>>>> overlooks the >>>>> possibility that the additional *choice* of systemd will attract more >>>>> users (and more instances - you do know that many "administrators" >>>>> manage large numbers of instances, right?). There is no evidence to >>>>> show >>>>> that other distros and projects that adopted systemd as the *only* >>>>> choice lost users - quite the reverse. >>>>> >>>> These are the ones who are abandoning Debian. Some of them came to >>>> Debian because it was one of the last holdouts. But they see the way >>>> Debian is going also, and don't like it. They'll probably end up on >>>> BSD. >>>> >>>>>> Sure, people who only run software in .deb packages won't be hit as >>>>>> hard. >>>>> At all. And then only if *they* don't elect to stay with sysv. >>>>> >>>>> But that is definitely not the entire Debian user base. >>>>> >>>> I never said it was the entire Debian user base. But even staying with >>>> sysv is only a temporary situation. They see the handwriting on the >>>> wall - whether you agree with it or not. >>>> >>>>> Those that deploy customisations in the "Debian Way" should file bug >>>>> reports if those customisations are not supported *if* they change >>>>> init >>>>> systems. >>>>> Upgrades have *always* supported customisations done the "Debian >>>>> Way" - >>>>> and I have every confidence they will continue to do so >>>>> >>>> And exactly what is the "Debian way" to add custom (NOT customized >>>> pre-packaged) software to the system? >>>> >>>> >>> Alien, checkinstall, and equivs come to mind. >>> >>> Then again, Debian has, to date, been pretty friendly to the basic: >>> download to /usr/local/src; unzip; untar >>> ./configure; make; make install >>> >>> >> Do you expect customers to build .deb files for every piece of software >> they create? >> >> It doesn't happen - and is not going to happen. It's much faster to >> just copy the files to the appropriate directories. And since they have >> complete control over the code, they know when changes are made and what >> has to be done when the code is updated. >> >> > > Not sure what you're arguing about here Jerry. Alien, checkinstall, and > equivs are ways to incorporate unpackaged software into the apt > ecosystem - for tracking and updating purposes, ./configure, make, > install is standard installation from source, bypassing the packaging > system. > >
Which is something they have decided NOT to do. And that is their prerogative - it is their system. Jerry -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54737b1e.4070...@gmail.com