Good idea if you ask me.
Myths not debunked but confirmed
Posted Jan 28, 2013 20:25 UTC (Mon) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
It's a _TERRIBLE_ idea.
If Systemd is such a burden, then why the hell is maintaining no less then three different init systems better?!
Between sticking with sysvinit, going upstart, or going systemd, Debian has choosen the worst possible outcome. I mean this is just mind boggling terrible decision making on the part of Debian. Choosing to do _anything_ else would of been a better move. A drunk hobo rolling dice would of done a better job.
And this is really sad thing for me to say, because Debian is one of the few distros that I actually like using.
Init systems in Debian
Posted Jan 28, 2013 21:23 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (guest, #15091)
And before you say that an init system is a core component... Debian maintains three different kernels, and one of them is not even widely used.
Users familiar with one of the init systems will appreciate its existence. Interested users will be able to compare init systems side by side. The rest will be grateful for being able to migrate at their own pace. That for me is enough reason to have all three.
Posted Jan 28, 2013 21:42 UTC (Mon) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
By not choosing Debian has more then tripled the amount of workload they have to deal with to make the system function properly. This not only increases their workload, it exponentially increases the amount of bugs a person is likely to run into. It makes it harder to write software for the system because now you have at least 3 different operating systems personalities you have to deal with.
Throwing scripts at it to try to automate the creation of other scripts for upstart and sysinv just means that now instead of just supporting 3 different init systems they have to support 3 different init systems and a bunch of new scripts.
To put it another way:
* It makes the workload they have to deal with much higher. This is Debian's developers problem. Maybe they prefer to play around with init systems rather then having a working OS. I can't fault them for how they want to spend their time, but... if their goal is to have a stable working OS with lots of software and third party support it's not something that is going to help them any meaningful respect in that regard.
* It increases the burden of third parties writing and maintaining services much harder. This is something that anybody trying to use or support Debian is now forced to deal with.
* It exponentially increases the amounts of bugs any person is likely to run into with Debian init's system. This is something that will bite end users and will likely contribute to issues for people that try to use Debian in production.
This is why it's a bad decision. It makes the OS worse, not better. Maintaining different kernels is very silly also if your goal is to have anything other then a toy OS, but at least the non-linux-kernel-debian folks can be marginalized by the fact that nobody actually uses that stuff. Unlike KFreeBSD I expect that they will have users that actually expect that sysvinit, systemd and/or upstart works.
And what is the benefit? So I can compare init systems side by side? Doesn't seem like much of a return of on investment.
Posted Jan 28, 2013 22:05 UTC (Mon) by smurf (subscriber, #17840)
In any case, I am fairly optimistic that post-Wheezy the "best practice" way to start a service in Debian will be a native systemd script, with auto-generated SysV-ish shell scripts and/or upstart-esque config files, whenever there are no special requirements.
How much time will elapse until then, I have no idea and refuse to speculate about. This is Debian, after all. :-/
Posted Jan 28, 2013 22:08 UTC (Mon) by man_ls (guest, #15091)
As to that burden, I expect that it will not be so difficult to develop for three init systems given that both Upstart and systemd claim to be SysV init-compatible. Even if the script automation script does not work out. I have had to customize init scripts every once in a while, this should not be too different.
Posted Jan 28, 2013 23:00 UTC (Mon) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950)
Posted Jan 29, 2013 16:51 UTC (Tue) by drag (subscriber, #31333)
Posted Jan 29, 2013 0:01 UTC (Tue) by rahvin (subscriber, #16953)
In other words, even though they pick a "default" they understand that every user will have different preferences and where there is developer support for it they provide the options. Honestly if they had more volunteers they'd provide even more options. Hell, they even have a hurd port and no one has a hurd port.
That's the beauty of Debian, they don't pick sides, they pick a default for a base install then allow the user to rip out and replaces with options fairly painlessly. That's the Debian way I'm familiar with, not the Debian way you are advocating.
Posted Jan 29, 2013 17:56 UTC (Tue) by Wol (guest, #4433)
Dunno about upstart - that may have the same problem.
So the only thing that will actually work across ALL supported platforms is SysV. But you've got to give people the OPTION of the others.
Posted Jan 30, 2013 8:36 UTC (Wed) by micka (subscriber, #38720)
Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds