First of all, thank you for such a quick reply. Now, I don't want to preach. But I will not pretend I chose Arch Linux at random. I chose it for many reasons, an important one of them being that I liked the Arch Way, it made sense to me, and it seemed you were following it. Now it seems to belong to a forgotten past. On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 10:34:01AM -0400, Daniel Micay wrote:
Arch is as much a systemd-based distribution as it is a Pacman-based distribution at this point. (...) Is it now? https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/The_Arch_Way says different. systemd is the opposite of the Arch Way except for being open-source: it is not simple, not minimalist, and not user-centric.
Upstreams are integrating support for systemd features and Arch is going to be enabling them, whether it's sd_notify support or something else. Upstream? Then why is it that for the same versions of the same
But that is not really what this problem is about. Although it is a bit mind-boggling that systemd has been chosen as the main init system for Arch, its shortcomings are not necessarily shortcomings of Arch. That is, Arch can still be simple, minimalist, etc. and it is with the conscience of this fact that I chose to install Arch Linux in all my systems. systemd breaks the Arch Way. Having it as a package doesn't. However, making so many packages depend on it so that any basic desktop usage (in the case of the util-linux dependency, even non-graphical usage) does break one principle listed in the aforementioned page: freedom. In fact, I ought to quote it: Another guiding principle of Arch Linux development is freedom. Users are not only permitted to make all decisions concerning system configuration, but also choose what their system will be. By keeping the system simple, Arch Linux provides the freedom to make any choice about the system. A freshly installed Arch Linux system contains only basic core components with no automatic configuration performed. Users are able to configure the system as they wish, from the shell. From the start of the installation procedure, every component of the system is 100% transparent and accessible for instant access, removal, or replacement by alternative components. The large number of packages and build scripts in the various Arch Linux repositories also support freedom of choice, offering free and open source software for those who prefer it, as well as proprietary software packages, for those who embrace functionality over ideology. It is the user who chooses. As Judd Vinet, the founder of the Arch Linux project said: "[Arch Linux] is what you make it." I used systemd in Arch for a long time. In fact, when I came, it was already the main init system, and I didn't really mind, or know much about it. Nonetheless, respecting the quoted principle, I could easily replace systemd by OpenRC when I chose to. Note that just last month, over 3 years had passed after systemd was adopted, and I could still use OpenRC. Now, for whatever reason, the principle was broken without notice. I'd expect news or an email in this mailing list, to which I've been paying close attention (though I knew less than the authors about most problems...). packages, say, in Gentoo they are not dependencies? Example, compare these two: https://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/x11-drivers/xf86-in... https://www.archlinux.org/packages/extra/x86_64/xf86-input-evdev/ That doesn't mean I want to compile everything. Or that you should have packages for, say, OpenRC. The packages in the repos are not my choice, I'm not asking to choose which ones should be on the official repos, that's what the unofficial repos and the AUR are for. It just means you shouldn't suppose people have these or those packages installed, but that instead, and as you did before, even years after systemd being default, you should provide whatever you want, open the doors you want, not closing any others. Minimalism means minimal dependencies too. If I wanted systemd bloat and a dash of hypocrisy, I'd stay in Windows installing Internet Explorer... I worry the suggestions to change distro are going too far. The point is not one of telling what the devs should or shouldn't do, but of remembering the principles upon which the community is based. I rest my case. Again, any reply is welcome. João Miguel