Anto wrote on 19.05.2015 14:43:
>
> On 19/05/15 14:00, Irrwahn wrote:
>> Just to be clear: Personally, I follow and use Devuan because I prefer
>> to maintain my installations [as] free [as possible] of any systemd
>> components, but calling "stupid" the fact that a maintainer takes a more
>> or less neutral stance WRT to init systems is a bit over the top, I think.
>
> I think I have to stop as this topic has been discussed by a lot of
> people over the last few years. But one thing to note though that smart
> people who develop good software do not usually cause controversial
> disagreements, because they also offer the possibilities for the people
> who do not like the software, to be able to completely uninstall the
> software and any of its components. I had to downgrade back to Debian
> wheezy as I could not uninstall systemd to be able to use pure sysvinit.
> Yes, I want to use pure sysvinit instead of the quick and dirty
> workaround that they provide in the form of shims and helpers.

Well, I certainly do not want to perpetuate some old topics. I only jumped
on the Devuan bandwagon quite recently and I certainly missed some important
past discussions. So I apologize for any possible inconvenience I caused.

Having said that, there is still one aspect I'd like to comment on (call it
nitpicking, if you like, I am perfectly fine with that; being a C programmer
myself has probably turned me into a pedant over the years. :-) Here goes:
I do not consider parts of software A, whose sole purpose is to provide
compatibility with system component X, as being components of X, but still
as belonging to A. More specifically: systemd init scripts that come with
e.g. a daemon package are not part of systemd, but are still part of the
package they came with. I think that is a subtle but important differentiation,
in order to not do injustice to many venerable software authors and package
maintainers, i.e. not lump them together with the annoying proponents of
the lock-in strategy.

Cheers,
Urban