[arch-general] Alternative init system proposal
jmcf125 at openmailbox.org
Thu Feb 11 16:12:24 UTC 2016
> It is tough enough for TUs to voluntarily keep the packages in the repos as
> close to current upstream as they do already, and adding an unnecessary
> layer of additional support for a small percentage of the user base who
> wish to have a second init system available, because they think it is
> better than systemd, is not a proposal that looks like it would get
> majority support even if there are a few people who continue to flood the
> mailing list with ongoing thread postings about this.
> Perhaps those who wish to pursue the alternative init idea could do so in
> private on a separate mailing list devoted to that topic alone and any
> interested parties can of course freely join in that discussion if they
> should wish to do so. The number of users who subscribe to that specific
> ML would be a gauge of any real interest from significant numbers of users.
> If that turns out to be a small handful of people only, then that would be
> at least some evidence of the level of support for that proposal. However
> filling people's inboxes with this discussion I suspect is not being found
> valuable by quite a few people I expect.
> Anyone is of course free to develop the proposed alternative init system
> for their own use, or form their own developer subgroup, and could provide
> their own repos if they wish, and anyone wanting to use the alternative can
> then do so.
> I certainly see many helpful concise and brief threads that seek to resolve
> or inform in a way that is digestible. However long running flame wars
> between systemd antagonists and supporters is counter-productive. The real
> question is whether or not any TUs or developers think that this is worthy
> of further investigation or not. Users who wish to volunteer to do the work
> can of course make themselves known.
I agree with you, the devs have more work to do, etc., but the cause of
these never-ending discussions must be pointed out: community attitude.
Bear with me for a moment:
OpenRC was working fine in Arch. Artoo's way was the most updated and
way to run it. Then some users thought: "Very tiny number of Arch users
use OpenRC and they have to choose from two methods" (actual quote). I
came for Linux because of choice! Why would they be bothered to remove
information on something that worked? Saying it "breaks often"? It's
bleeding edge! And it seldom breaks. Users in the forums just want to
know why a version isn't working, why can't we host that type of
content? What's wrong with people? Artoo was pushed far enough to leave
Arch, now there are no AUR packages for OpenRC.
Please, just let people be. Accept the possibility of different stuff
and opinions, instead of trying to make everyone conform to what you
think they should do/use/choose/write...
More information about the arch-general