Am 01.03.2015 00:04 schrieb T.J. Duchene:
> As for systemd having "tentacles", there is certainly truth to that,
> but
> then the same argument could be said of Python or Perl. Both are
> rooted
> so far into "standard" distributions that it is hard to extract them.

As other members have already pointed out, this is not a fair
comparison.

> Ultimately, the whole problem revolves around the idea of packaging.
> Personally, I've come to believe that the existing idea of package
> management is more damaging to Linux than systemd itself. If the
> Debian
> packaging system separated the actual init files from binary package
> files, then majority of developers making Jesse packages that assume
> systemd rather than System 5 would be non-issue.

I'm not sure that I agree with this. Packaging is, in the end, just a
practical
way to manage compiled software on your system. On the other hand, what
a given
software does, and how that software is tied to other software, is
inherently
independent from which package management system is being used. If
software A
needs software B because its developer decided to rely on software B,
then it
doesn't matter whether the downstream packager decides to put B as a
dependency
or not. However, if he doesn't, then software A most probably won't work
as
intended, if it'll work at all.

Of course packaging, especially when automatic dependency resolution is
implemented, will introduce loads of possible decisions that can be made
by
downstream packagers, but this is a completely different story, let
alone the
so-called "tasks", which I admit having always skipped while using
Debian: in
fact I wanted to decide by myself which were the "defaults" I needed.

That being said, the Grand Unifying Init System's attempt to hijack a
large
part of the free software ecosystem, by imposing itself as a hard
dependency,
is technically independent from downstream packaging decisions, even if
it
does influence those decisions.

>> I guess that far from focusing on subjective topics, DeVuan is forking
>> DeBian itself right now, while encouraging objective and balanced
>> discussion, which is welcome and a pleasure to read.
>
> Fair enough, Philip. Who am I to say it does not have entertainment
> value?

Not only entertainment value: educational and *ethical* value as well.

> As a person who has written C code and used Unixes for about 20+ years,
> I see some technical benefit in systemd's approach. Just because
> systemd itself has design flaws does not mean the entire concept is
> bad.
> The fact that I come right out and say so, even if it just happens to
> go
> against the majority sensibility is: with blunt honestly, not my
> problem.

No one ever said that its entire concept is bad. Moreover, I think it is
kind
of useless to insist with this here, since Devuan is intentionally,
consciously
and rationally avoiding systemd, no matter what its technical merits
are.

> I'm not really looking for a debate on the topic, because in the grand
> scheme of things my opinion does not amount to much, really. Nor
> should it. You should always make up your own mind.

Of course.

> If you'd rather not hear it, I can certainly go elsewhere or refrain
> from posting, but I personally do not believe that Devuan needs "yes
> men" (or yes-women).

Well, the decision is completely up to you. I am a guest on this list,
and I'm
a peaceful fellow, hence it is not my goal, nor my right, to send anyone
away,
whatever opinions they have. On the other hand, as others have pointed
out,
there are plenty of pro/anti systemd debates on the Web already, so it
makes
no sense to replicate them here, a systemd-free project by definition.

>> This one seems to have been inspired by Microsoft's ancient anti-Linux
>> FUD marketing campaign - you know, the one with a long-proboscized
>> monster-penguin.
>
> Not at all. It is simply a comment on the collective nature of Linux.
> Sometimes design by committee is not the best approach. That's simply
> life. That I call Linux a "Linux is a mean-spirited, ugly camel with
> the number of humps chosen by committee" but "endearing" at the same
> time is nothing more than a recognition that it has flaws. There are
> precisely zero perfect software projects in the world. Having had this
> much time in the field, I simply have no illusions about it is all, and
> I feel free to say so.

Agreed, but one can find drawbacks in every approach, and again, it
makes
little sense to reiterate this here, since it is a well known factor
which
can potentially affect just about every situation where humans interact.
Most of all, it doesn't seem to be a problem affecting Devuan very much.

> I'm sorry if that bothers you, but it hardly seems a secret to me.

It doesn't bother me, I just find it pretty useless and redundant, and
not
much constructive: I guess we already know that "the Open Source
community
is full of a**holes", etc. etc.

> Have a great day, Philip! =)

Have a great day too, t.j.

Philip