On 21/12/15 11:52, Rowland Penny wrote:
> On 21/12/15 10:03, John Hughes wrote:
>>
>>
>> What I'm looking for is choice -- I want people who want systemd to
>> be able to run it, and people who dont want it to be able to use
>> sysvinit, openrc or upstart or whatever. At the moment things are
>> all fucked up because there is no long term alternative to the seat
>> management part of systemd and few people seem prepared to work on it.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Dng mailing list
>> Dng@???
>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
>
> This is what people have been trying to get through to you, if you run
> debain jessie, you 'HAVE' to use systemd whether you want to or not.

No, you don't. You do have to have systemd installed, and I'm not sure
why, but systemd does not have to be pid 1.

> Can you answer why a desktop relies on an init system, because I cannot.

Because systemd (or systemd-shim) does session management, and Gnome
didn't want to keep doing it (badly) themselves.

> I can understand why parts of the desktop rely on something like udev,
> but this has now been subsumed by systemd.

No it hasn't. The source code for udev is in the same tree as systemd,
and they share some library functions, but udev still works without systemd.

> If systemd had just been a replacement for sysv or upstart etc, then
> there would not have been all the row about it, those that wanted to
> use it could have and those that didn't, didn't have to, but no,
> because of the way it is taking over the established way of doing
> things, you are denied the free choice of what init system to use!

Assumes facts not in evidence.