Just ran across this interview from 2011:

https://raphaelhertzog.com/2011/12/13/people-behind-debian-ben-hutchings-member-of-the-kernel-team/

Tucked away at the end was this quote:

Raphael: What’s the biggest problem of Debian?

Ben: I think we try too hard to accommodate every possible option, without regard for the cost to developers and users in general. As an example, we now have sysvinit, file-rc, upstart and systemd all in testing. Daemon maintainers can’t rely on any advanced features of upstart or systemd because we refuse to choose between them. And the decision to support the FreeBSD kernel means that we cannot choose upstart or systemd as the only option. So all daemon maintainers will have to maintain those baroque init scripts for the indefinite future. We really should be able to decide as a distribution that when one option is technically good and popular then it can be made the only option. But no-one really has the authority to do that, so we muddle along with the pretence that all the options are equally valid and functional, while none of them is supported as well as they should be.

What is this about 'baroque init scripts' and wanting to have only ONE option? Rather prescient in light of where we are now . . .

Just sharing . . .

golinux