undefined | Better HN

0 pointskelnos5y ago0 comments

> Debian, Ubuntu, Arch all chose the systemd voluntarily.

My understanding (I believe detailed in the article) is that Debian, at least, chose systemd because they were forced to if they wanted a reasonable default GNOME experience for their users. If they hadn't, GNOME would have been missing some features that would have been obvious and jarring.

You can certainly argue that they made the wrong call there, and that they should have pushed back (though arguably by the time Debian got there, that ship had already sailed), but "chose systemd voluntarily" is an incorrect simplification.

0 comments

JoshTriplett5y ago

> My understanding (I believe detailed in the article) is that Debian, at least, chose systemd because they were forced to

This (and much of the article) is incorrect. Debian went through an extensive evaluation process at the time, over the course of 4 months, considering several different init systems, and chose systemd based on this detailed technical evaluation. That evaluation also considered sysvinit, openrc, and upstart. All of that evaluation occurred publicly, and is archived on Debian's mailing lists and bug-tracking system.

astrobe_5y ago

Debian also ran a poll a few months ago in order to reevaluate that choice, at least partially. Quite the hint that all is not jimmy-dandy.

As a programmer in embedded, Systemd feels like it solves problems we didn't have, and introduces problems we didn't have. I what point is it more conservatism than "if it ain't broken, don't fix it"? God only knows.

Well, every time the Systemd topic pops on HN or Reddit (and even other places where you wouldn't expect it [1]), I go fetch some popcorn... It seems that different people have different needs and different experiences, hence the flamewars.

[1] https://forum.minetest.net/viewtopic.php?t=21490

bkor5y ago

Can you reference that poll? There was a GR, which is entirely different than a poll. The outcome of that was also pretty clear, Debian as a whole is ok to depend a bit more on systemd. I don't get why you use it as an example of the opposite.

See https://lwn.net/Articles/808217/ for the outcome of the GR.

1 more reply

vezzy-fnord5y ago

All of my views come straight from primary sources which I meticulously uncovered, including Debian mailing lists.

I realize that you have been one of the more visible members of the pro-systemd side for years now, so I'd definitely like a more coherent rebuttal to both the historical and technical sections.

Of course, you'd probably consider any kind of response to be undignified, and I understand.

JoshTriplett5y ago

I participated in those discussions first-hand, and recall them rather well. At no point was "we don't have a choice" taken seriously as an argument; even most of the pro-systemd folks didn't consider that a valid argument for systemd, and many of the most judicious and respected voices in the discussion called out such arguments as being unhelpful. Debian is large enough and stubborn enough that they're more than willing (occasionally entirely too willing) to do their own thing if they think they have a better path.

As for the rest, I consider https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23062725 a good start. systemd was successful because it provided working code that people (including distribution maintainers) wanted to use, for a variety of reasons. This is the type of problem where no amount of architecture-in-a-vacuum discussions make up for actually doing the work and handling all the myriad cases that come up when people use it in practice. systemd did that; the next init system after systemd will need to do that as well.

dotancohen5y ago

This is the real point.

Debian did _not_ choose to use Systemd. Debian was forced to choose between adopting Systemd despite going against the very principals of Debian, or loosing Gnome. They were put it a very difficult position.

Ubuntu did _not_ choose to use Systemd. Ubuntu, using Debian upstream, decided not to break from Debian. Shuttleworth, the founder of Ubuntu, has a very sublime message about it at the time.

I'm personally of the opinion that when forced into a corner, do not side with whoever pushed you into that corner. The Debian technical committee did not have that resolve, they took the easy way out. Lots of Debian-derived distros followed suit out of necessity.

pseudalopex5y ago

And Ubuntu followed Debian. Mark Shuttleworth called it "losing graciously".[1]

[1] https://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1316

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

JoshTriplett5y ago

> My understanding (I believe detailed in the article) is that Debian, at least, chose systemd because they were forced to

astrobe_5y ago

Debian also ran a poll a few months ago in order to reevaluate that choice, at least partially. Quite the hint that all is not jimmy-dandy.

[1] https://forum.minetest.net/viewtopic.php?t=21490

bkor5y ago

See https://lwn.net/Articles/808217/ for the outcome of the GR.

1 more reply

vezzy-fnord5y ago

All of my views come straight from primary sources which I meticulously uncovered, including Debian mailing lists.

I realize that you have been one of the more visible members of the pro-systemd side for years now, so I'd definitely like a more coherent rebuttal to both the historical and technical sections.

Of course, you'd probably consider any kind of response to be undignified, and I understand.

JoshTriplett5y ago

dotancohen5y ago

This is the real point.

Ubuntu did _not_ choose to use Systemd. Ubuntu, using Debian upstream, decided not to break from Debian. Shuttleworth, the founder of Ubuntu, has a very sublime message about it at the time.

pseudalopex5y ago

And Ubuntu followed Debian. Mark Shuttleworth called it "losing graciously".[1]

[1] https://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1316

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse