Ian Jackson's general resolution to prevent init system coupling has failed to pass, the majority vote deciding that the resolution is unnecessary. This means that not only will Debian's default init be systemd, but packages will not be required to support other init systems. Presumably, this means that using other init systems on Debian (without using systemd as a base) will not be possible without major workarounds, or possibly at all. It also leaves the future of Debian projects such as kFreeBSD unclear, as systemd is linux specific.
The vote results can be found here
The winners are:
Option 4 "General Resolution is not required"
(Score: 3, Interesting) by novak on Wednesday November 19 2014, @12:18PM
I only use Debian on servers.
To me, the most crushing blow after the fall of Debian is that all distros relying on it for upstream are now locked into systemd, and systemd has taken over almost all linux distros. I can't imagine that slackware and gentoo will hold out forever either, though I hope they'll keep going for a while.
My desktop is crux linux, which was the original inspiration for arch linux. The main difference is that it uses a ports system for packages. It's probably the only thing closer to BSD than slackware.
(Score: 2) by cockroach on Wednesday November 19 2014, @12:31PM
Ah interesting, never heard of crux. They explicitly mention "BSD-style initscripts" - I may just have to give it a try. Thanks!
(Score: 2) by novak on Wednesday November 19 2014, @12:40PM
You're welcome. I've been using it since 2010 and I haven't found one I like better yet.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 19 2014, @01:05PM
How has it immunized itself from the threat of systemd?
To be honest, a year ago I would never have guessed that Debian would, as a project, make an absolutely idiotic decision like switching to systemd. I would never have expected it to tear the community apart like it has. I surely did not see myself moving all of my systems over to FreeBSD, like I'm currently in the process of doing.
What is it about crux that will prevent it from being infected by systemd?
FreeBSD has the advantage of not using the Linux kernel, as well as having a team of developers who just don't put up with shitty technology like systemd. What does crux have?
(Score: 2) by tempest on Wednesday November 19 2014, @02:32PM
Systemd isn't an inevitability in Linux, it's a CHOICE. If Crux uses simple BSD style init scripts to adhere to the primary "keep it simple" philosophy, I doubt they'd adopt the antithesis willingly.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 20 2014, @03:12PM
Of course, due to its nature, it has the danger of soon being not merely a choice. If the application you need depends on Gnome, and Gnome depends on systemd, then you only have the choice to either not use the application, or to use systemd. And the more common systemd will be on popular distributions, the more likely new software will be dependent on it, and new versions of old software will become dependent of it, and other alternatives not dependent on it will be abandoned and bit-rot away.
Note that while it is possible to run a Gnome application on an otherwise non-Gnome desktop, using Gome only for those specific applications, it is not possible to use systemd just for those programs that need it. Need one program that requires systemd, and you'll have no choice but to let systemd manage your machine.
Given the strong opposition to systemd, there's hope that a strong alternative will emerge. However that will soon not just be a slight variation, with just a few different packages installed, but due to the nature of systemd, it will mean a hard split; after a decade, systemd-Linux and alternative Linux will likely not be much closer to each other than Linux and *BSD are today.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday November 19 2014, @03:48PM
"Hope is not a strategy" :/
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"