Tom Wijsman wrote: > Let's say that I were to develop a system with some other Gentoo devs; > that doesn't mean we are able to make everything in the tree support > that system, making it an usable tool for everything is unrealistic
This isn't just "any tool" though: it's the core init-system. Your reasoning is on shaky ground during this part of your mail, for that reason. If we were discussing one app against another, or even one DE against another, it would be a different matter. The core system has to be a usable basis to build "everything" from. Even if one end-user choice precludes another. Somehow I don't like the idea of switching from a systemd-stage3 to openrc, whereas the inverse seems like a viable option. > Making such a design choice isn't a fault. There is no need for blame. Design choices have consequences in terms of where manpower can go, as well as in terms of end-user capability and flexibility, especially when one of the "options" has far-reaching implications for the rest of the stack, such that it is a question of "my way or the high way," which seems counter to the idea of choice i hear so much about. It appears to be akin to the argument that freedom means the freedom to hurt whoever you want without concern. So it's perfectly reasonable for them to be questioned and criticised. Please note: I fully support gnome-3.8 stabilising with a hard-requirement on systemd. News just in: software requires another piece of software to work. It's also been obvious for ages that the consensus is to supply unit files where available, be that from upstream or a Gentoo user/developer, so I wish people would stop banging on about it (not you, just in general: it's a dead argument yet it keeps being raised as if that's what the concerns are about.) The rest of us don't really need to worry that much, imo. It's not like the kernel's going away, and we now have a viable to alternative to udev once that gets fully absorbed into the spaghetti-lasagne-fest that is systemd. The stuff we rely on, the simplicity and modularity, always wins out in the end, because it's more efficient and more robust in the long-term, and the wheel turns again, til in a decade there'll be another "amazing innovation" that "changes everything" if you could just see the light/drink the kool-aid. It just doesn't get discussed much, since it's in the background doing all the boring stuff. And has done for decades. regards, igli -- #friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)
