[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

On 11/24/2014 10:52 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote:

On 25/11/14 01:57, Jerry Stuckle wrote:

On 11/24/2014 8:54 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote:

Jerry Stuckle wrote:

On 11/24/2014 2:56 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote: <snip>

Yes, and while the Linux community continues, Debian will
lose a lot of dedicated users due to this decision.  Possibly
another fork, or possibly another distro.  But Debian will
lose users.

1. At best that's pure speculation. With all due respect to
Gypsy Rose Lee (who is really just a naughty boy), some of us
"engineer types" place little stock in soothsaying.


It is more than speculation.  Read the posts here - some people
(including me) are already looking for alternatives.  And so are
many companies I know of who have looked at jessie.


2. It's false logic to conclude *only* losses from change (and
duplicitous to deny that systemd is your only choice) - it
overlooks the possibility that the additional *choice* of
systemd will attract more users (and more instances - you do
know that many "administrators" manage large numbers of
instances, right?). There is no evidence to show that other
distros and projects that adopted systemd as the *only* choice
lost users - quite the reverse.


These are the ones who are abandoning Debian.  Some of them came
to Debian because it was one of the last holdouts.  But they see
the way Debian is going also, and don't like it.  They'll
probably end up on BSD.


Sure, people who only run software in .deb packages won't be
hit as hard.

At all. And then only if *they* don't elect to stay with sysv.

But that is definitely not the entire Debian user base.


I never said it was the entire Debian user base.  But even
staying with sysv is only a temporary situation.  They see the
handwriting on the wall - whether you agree with it or not.


Those that deploy customisations in the "Debian Way" should
file bug reports if those customisations are not supported *if*
they change init systems. Upgrades have *always* supported
customisations done the "Debian Way" - and I have every
confidence they will continue to do so


And exactly what is the "Debian way" to add custom (NOT
customized pre-packaged) software to the system?



Alien, checkinstall, and equivs come to mind.

Agreed (also fs guidelines)


Then again, Debian has, to date, been pretty friendly to the
basic: download to /usr/local/src; unzip; untar ./configure; make;
make install

and "checkinstall"



Do you expect customers to build .deb files for every piece of
software they create?

No, I expect the admin to 'try' and do that (e.g. checkinstall) or
install the upstream package to the appropriate place where it *will*
withstand upgrade. But not everyone follows BP (e.g. ITIL, PCI, and
whatever relevant guidelines apply to their use-case). I don't know what
your use-case is...


These are system admins who have either started with Unix in the 1980's,
or people who learned from those sysadmins.  Back then you did put stuff
in /bin and/or /sbin, for instance.  And the company is not changing.
Well, just to be accurate, most folks who started with Unix in the 80s install local stuff into 
/usr/...
and
/usr/local/....

and there's also /opt
And most well-formed source trees that I've come across are designed to download into /usr/local/src and make into /usr/local by default. 

Cheers,

Miles

--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.   .... Yogi Berra
Reply to: