On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Yuri K. Shatroff <yks-...@yandex.ru> wrote: [ snip ] > Isn't there too many "if you believe" and "if you agree"? A church of > systemd? ;)
As I said to Tanstaafl, it gets kind of philosophical. Technically, systemd is the obvious superior choice, and that's why the TC voted for it in Debian (read the discussion). > I wonder why all systemd's fancy stuff hasn't yet been integrated into any > existing init system, because of theoretical impossibility or just practical > uselessness? If it's "practically useless", why so many distributions keep choosing it? Why GNOME started using it? > Actually why not do the daemon management, logging, cron etc in the Linux > kernel itself? It's obvious, and we even have a perfect example of > kernel-integrated graphics around -- `guess the OS name`. It also has much > in common with systemd; "Believe us it's the best OS", "Believe us it > provides loads of features", "Agree with having binary logs" etc. All the software is libre; with only that any comparison to Microsoft becomes moot. > A competent approach for choosing software for a task is answering the > questions: > 1. Is the software standards-compliant? > 2. Does the software have an alternative compatible implementation? > 3. Is the software developed to achieve a certain, concrete goal? > 4. Does the software achieve the goal? > 5. Does the software achieve the goal "gracefully"? > 6. Does the software have a clear perspective and view what it will be like? > 7. Is the software developed and maintained by a reliable company or group? That's *your* approach. It's certainly not my approach: I don't care if Emacs is "standards-compliant" (whatever that means for a text editor); I don't care if Inkscape has an alternative compatible implementation; and for the rest of your questions, my answer would be yes. > AFAICT, with systemd there's by far one "yes". The other answers are dubious > if just plain "no". >From your point of view. > I'd personally share Alan McKinnon's POV: there's no real reason to switch > to systemd since the present init systems serve pretty well and the benefit, > if any, isn't worth the adaptation threshold. That's fine; you don't have to use systemd. But if (as an extreme and unlikely example), Gentoo decided to switch exclusively to systemd, then either someone willing and able would need to come out ant start maintaining the alternatives, or then you should do it. That's how free software works. > But why then is Linux drifting to systemd? The answer is simple: money. Time > is money. You have to support two init systems -> twice the time, twice the > money. Sooner or later, a sum of money will outweigh the users' opinion. To > be a realist, one has to admit that in near future 90% of new distro > versions will be systemd-based. Unless some green soxx emerge and take over > Red Hat... I don't think neither time nor money had to do with Debian's (nor Arch's, nor OpenSuse's, nor Maegia's, nor Sabayon's) decision. It's just technically superior. But's that's just my opinion, and what I believe ;) So, amen? :D Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
