[175353] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Linux: concerns over systemd adoption and Debian's decision to
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ca By)
Mon Oct 20 21:17:38 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <5445AD63.7090400@lugosys.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2014 18:15:52 -0700
From: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
To: "Israel G. Lugo" <israel.lugo@lugosys.com>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Monday, October 20, 2014, Israel G. Lugo <israel.lugo@lugosys.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Not intending to start a flame war here. I have been referred to the
> website below, and believe they certainly raise some valid concerns.
>
> http://www.debianfork.org/
>
> If you have the time, please take a moment to read over the text, and
> follow a few links. I am quoting the first few paragraphs as a summary:
>
> > We are Veteran Unix Admins and we are concerned about what is
> > happening to Debian GNU/Linux to the point of considering a
> > fork of the project.
> >
> > Some of us are upstream developers, some professional
> > sysadmins: we are all concerned peers interacting with Debian
> > and derivatives on a daily basis.
> >
> > We don't want to be forced to use systemd in substitution to
> > the traditional UNIX sysvinit init, because systemd betrays
> > the UNIX philosophy.
> >
> > We contemplate adopting more recent alternatives to sysvinit,
> > but not those undermining the basic design principles of "do
> > one thing and do it well" with a complex collection of dozens
> > of tightly coupled binaries and opaque logs.
>
> I understand discussion on this matter has been quite polarized in some
> circles. As stated, it's not my intention to start an argument on
> whether A is better than B, nor do I believe that to be the site's
> purpose. Rather, I would like to divulge and hopefully incite some
> productive discussion.
>
> Regards,
> Israel G. Lugo
>
A diversity of implementations does a good ecosystem make.
CB
