[systemd-devel] I wonder… why systemd provokes this amount of polarity and resistance

[Martin Steigerwald]

Hi Rob,

Am Montag, 6. Oktober 2014, 14:56:22 schrieb Rob Owens:
> ----- Original Message -----
> 
> > From: "Martin Steigerwald" <Martin at lichtvoll.de>
> > 
> > Heck, I started a thread here and then didn´t manage to take time to
> > carefully
> > read it and reply here and there as I see fit. But I challenged people on
> > debian-user mailing list to constructively voice their concerns upstream,
> > and even pointed them to this mailing list. As far as I saw *no one* of
> > the posters in debian-user took up on that challenge. Which I view as a
> > pity. Cause now actually you invited constructive feedback. I wonder
> > whether I may forward your answer to debian-user so they see your
> > statement of inviting constructive feedback.
> 
> I am here from debian-user, due to Martin's suggestion.  So now that he's
> calling me out, I guess I'll post my questions :)
> 
> For the record, I'm a sysadmin and not a developer.  I imagine my questions
> and opinions will reflect that.

Thank you for voicing your concerns as one of the many users who where not so 
hesitant to voice their concerns on the debian-user mailing list.

> > Here the feedback I read over and over again is that you and RedHat
> > basically forced the systemd decision onto other distributions. While I
> > do not see how you actually can be powerful enough to do that, as we live
> > in a free will zone. I do see tendencies that more and more stuff
> > *depends* on systemd cause it needs features only available there.
> > 
> > On of the most talked on things on debian-user is the logind thing. GNOME
> > actually depends on it, as far as I know. While KDE in Debian still uses
> 
> > ConsoleKit, as it seems to me when looking at the process list and finding:
> On Debian, I came across an unusual dependency.  Installing a cd burner
> (brasero) required me to change my init system to systemd.  Sounds kind of
> ridiculous, I think.  The dependency chain went like this:
> 
> brasero -> gvfs -> gvfs-daemons -> udisks2 -> libpam-systemd -> systemd-sysv

I really find this kind of chain quite ridiculous.

But if its breakable at least as Martin told… still.

I think its important to make sure that installing brasero does not 
accidentally switch a sysvinit system to systemd. As it would be the least a 
user would expect here and from common sense it does not even make sense. It 
may make sense technically as explained, but from a user and sysadmin point of 
view it does not make any sense at all and is quite disruptive.

Ciao,
-- 
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA  B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7