Patrick Erdmann <pe@???> writes:
> On 09.08.2015 12:02, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
>> Mark S Bilk <mark@???> writes:
>>> It seems to me that it's good to have shim programs that satisfy
>>> dependencies of apps on systemd, each shim performing some systemd
>>> function. Here's why:
>>>
>>> Suppose there are 10,000 application programs (apps) for Linux,
>>> and their developers foolishly insert dependencies on systemd.

[...]

> I hope this is understandable. I think in most cases one patch could
> uphold for a long time. Please think about that and stop developing
> shims :) All those shims will end up in having a systemd fork.

A 'fork' would be something which started with the current systemd
codebase and would then either move in a different direction or at least
be maintained by different people. This would be worse as it would
amount to reimplementing the systemd APIs in a way intended to be
compatible with the beast itself but either without providing any real
functionality or with providing it in some other way than it is provided
by the systemd code itself. Ie, on the front side, it would 'feel and
look' exactly like a systemd-using system does but on the backside, it
would just be a sub-par implementation of systemd. It would also still
require a fair amount of neverending development work in order to
maintain this 'DINE' ('Devuan Is Not An Emulator') project
and could thus be pretty much regarded as worst-of-everything.

Borrowing a term Mr Poettering coined on Google+ a while ago:

One can pretty much imagine some sort of exhibition cage at a Linux
conference sporting a bunch of grey bearded (or greyingly bearded) men
in shirt-sleeves, busily hacking on their laptops with a big "UNIX(*)
confusobeards busy with imitating something they could have gotten for
free badly. Bite sometimes. Keep your distance and don't try to feed."
sign on the front side ...