SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Controversy is nothing new when it comes to systemd. Many people find this new Linux init system to be inherently flawed in most ways, yet it is still gaining traction with major distros like Arch Linux, openSUSE, Fedora, and soon both Ubuntu and Debian GNU/Linux. The adoption of systemd for Debian 8 "Jessie" has been particularly fraught with strife and animosity.
Some have described the systemd adoption process as having been a "coup", while others are vowing to stick with Debian 7 as long as possible before moving to another distro. Others are so upset by what they see as a complete betrayal of the Debian and open source communities that there is serious discussion about forking Debian. Regardless of one's stance toward systemd, it cannot be argued that it has become one of the most divisive and disruptive changes in the long history of the Debian project, threatening to destroy both the project and the community that has built up around it.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by pTamok on Sunday September 28 2014, @10:40AM
One thing about the Unix philosophy, later adopted by many of those interested in GNU/Linux is the idea of "do one thing, and do it well".
A problem I have seen for a while is the creeping existence of mandatory dependencies: both in requiring a large amount of software installed before a new package will work; and in packages having dependencies on software which seems completely orthogonal to the packages reasonable requirements.
Why should a desktop requirement have a mandatory dependency on a system startup manager? Why should a particular software package have a dependency on a particular desktop environment? You get to the point that a simple wish to use a text editor or teminal emulator 'forces' use of a desktop environment, which in turn 'forces' the use of a particular system startup manager.
A problem is that even if you choose to use a distribution that currently does not choose to use systemd, much, if not all of your favoured software will soon have systemd dependencies forced upon it, either directly, or via a desktop environment.
One of the things that has characterises the free software movement is the availability of choice, but the situation described above appears to be shutting down choice. I suspect this runs contrary to what a large number of contributors to free software think is the right approach.
I'm not a programmer, and I don't have the economic means to finance a maximal-choice distribution. At the moment, most people seem to be pointing towards Slackware as the hold-outs against systemd, but I wonder how long that can remain the case when desktop environments and other software force systemd dependence. I can move towards the BSDs, but it will be with a sad look back to the Linux ecosystem that seems to be deliberately imploding. That said, all is not completely rosy in the BSD world, if you look at this list of reasons NOT to use BSD: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTExMjE [phoronix.com] which followed a list of reasons why you might want to use BSD: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTExMDg [phoronix.com]
How long will it be before LibreOffice and Thunderbird have systemd dependencies, I wonder?
As a long-standing GNU/Linux user, I have dabbled in Debian and SuSE, but ended up using Ubuntu (as I didn't have the time to dabble any more). I wonder what I'll be using in 5 years.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 28 2014, @12:02PM
Most of LibreOffice user base, same for Mozilla products, are Windows users, so enforcing dependency on a Linux specific feature seems a little like ninihammering.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 28 2014, @12:14PM
For those who don't know, "ninihammering" is British slang for an act that involves one gay man anally penetrating the anus of another man (the "ninny") with swift and hard thrusts (the "hammering") without the use of lubricant. Apparently this is often done at gay clubs, where the encounters are casually done in washroom toilet stalls without much time to prepare.