,On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 12:00 AM, Franco Lanza <nextime@???> wrote:

> English isn't my primary language and i'm not so proficient with it


You do better than you think. I am a native speaker.


> Systemd isn't a priority, it's just a "if we can permit to use it
> without compromise anything else, we will support it.".
>

Maybe its wishful thinking but my native English language translation of
the above would be something like, "the distro will have the absolute
minimum set of dependencies, the minimal set of "Priority: required"
packages, to increase end user freedom, reliability, predictability,
convenience, and security."

(where end user is defined as actual end users like devs, admins, embedded
device owners, not exclusively defined as imaginary gnome desktop users who
don't exist)

This takes into account that a user can do whatever they want after the
core is installed. A sane thing for a user to decide to install might be
emacs but thats not going to be a Priority: required package. An insane
thing for a user to decide to install might be systemd, which also isn't
going to be a Priority: required package. Neither are actually needed for
a machine to do its job.

I like a minimal dependency set because udev and systemd are useless on my
servers or desktops so not having them installed means less drama, less
bugs and a tighter security perimeter (can't pown my server using a
udev/systemd zero day if I don't have them installed, LOL).

I've been in this computing / IT / admin / dev game a long time, since '81,
and small dependency sets recently used to be seen as an embedded /
consumer thing because disk space is so cheap why not pull in the entire
archive. We as a profession are now learning the very hard way that a
minimal dependency set is no longer a disk space or CPU power issue, its a
user freedom, reliability, predictability, convenience, and especially a
security issue.