If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ...

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
79 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ...

Patrick Bartek-2
The Linux mantra has always been "choice," plethoras of choices. So why
at install time, is there no choice for the init system?  You get what
the developers decide. Yes, you can install a new one -- I've done it
and it works -- but only after the install.  It'd be a lot easier, if
there were a choice to begin with just like whether you want a GUI and
which one.

Now, I know with LFS, you get to choose everything, etc.  But is a
choice of init at install time so outrageous that no one ever
considered it or is it technically unfeasible or something else.

Just curious.

B

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ...

John L. Ries
You do have your choice of distros and most distros provide wide
lattitude as to what software to install, what GUI (if any) to run, what
shell to use (my preferred poison is ksh, not bash), etc.  I'm not all
that fond of systemd myself (though my relationship with it is
improving), but there are still distros that use old fashioned init
(Slackware comes to mind).

And all of the above constitutes a lot more choice than you get from
either Apple or Microsoft.

--------------------------|
John L. Ries              |
Salford Systems           |
Phone: (619)543-8880 x107 |
or     (435)867-8885      |
--------------------------|


On Monday 2017-03-13 13:30, Patrick Bartek wrote:

>Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 13:30:11
>From: Patrick Bartek <[hidden email]>
>To: [hidden email]
>Subject: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ...
>Resent-Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2017 19:30:41 +0000
>Resent-From: <[hidden email]>
>
>The Linux mantra has always been "choice," plethoras of choices. So why
>at install time, is there no choice for the init system?  You get what
>the developers decide. Yes, you can install a new one -- I've done it
>and it works -- but only after the install.  It'd be a lot easier, if
>there were a choice to begin with just like whether you want a GUI and
>which one.
>
>Now, I know with LFS, you get to choose everything, etc.  But is a
>choice of init at install time so outrageous that no one ever
>considered it or is it technically unfeasible or something else.
>
>Just curious.
>
>B
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ...

Greg Wooledge
In reply to this post by Patrick Bartek-2
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 12:30:11PM -0700, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> The Linux mantra has always been "choice," plethoras of choices. So why
> at install time, is there no choice for the init system?  You get what
> the developers decide. Yes, you can install a new one -- I've done it
> and it works -- but only after the install.  It'd be a lot easier, if
> there were a choice to begin with just like whether you want a GUI and
> which one.

Because the number of people who want to run a new version of Debian with
an ancient and deprecated init system is probably in the triple digits,
worldwide.

You are a member of a small minority.  It's not reasonable to expect
that a whole bunch of time will be spent making install images with
alternative init systems for such a small demand.  You have a solution
which works just fine.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ...

Erwan David
Le 03/13/17 à 20:40, Greg Wooledge a écrit :

> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 12:30:11PM -0700, Patrick Bartek wrote:
>> The Linux mantra has always been "choice," plethoras of choices. So why
>> at install time, is there no choice for the init system?  You get what
>> the developers decide. Yes, you can install a new one -- I've done it
>> and it works -- but only after the install.  It'd be a lot easier, if
>> there were a choice to begin with just like whether you want a GUI and
>> which one.
>
> Because the number of people who want to run a new version of Debian with
> an ancient and deprecated init system is probably in the triple digits,
> worldwide.
>
> You are a member of a small minority.  It's not reasonable to expect
> that a whole bunch of time will be spent making install images with
> alternative init systems for such a small demand.  You have a solution
> which works just fine.
>

So why don't you use windows, if you despise minorities ?
Your email is both insulting and contemptful. If this is your only
argument, that's bad for the point you pretend to denfend.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ...

rhkramer
On Monday, March 13, 2017 03:44:19 PM Erwan David wrote:
> So why don't you use windows, if you despise minorities ?
> Your email is both insulting and contemptful. If this is your only
> argument, that's bad for the point you pretend to denfend.

-1

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ...

Miles Fidelman-3
In reply to this post by Greg Wooledge
On 3/13/17 12:40 PM, Greg Wooledge wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 12:30:11PM -0700, Patrick Bartek wrote:
>> The Linux mantra has always been "choice," plethoras of choices. So why
>> at install time, is there no choice for the init system?  You get what
>> the developers decide. Yes, you can install a new one -- I've done it
>> and it works -- but only after the install.  It'd be a lot easier, if
>> there were a choice to begin with just like whether you want a GUI and
>> which one.
> Because the number of people who want to run a new version of Debian with
> an ancient and deprecated init system is probably in the triple digits,
> worldwide.
>
> You are a member of a small minority.  It's not reasonable to expect
> that a whole bunch of time will be spent making install images with
> alternative init systems for such a small demand.  You have a solution
> which works just fine.

That might be because all of those who run servers - the traditional
realm of Debian - have given up and migrated elsewhere.  We can't afford
to run a poorly designed load of crap, that takes over one's machine, as
an init system.

Miles Fidelman

--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.  .... Yogi Berra

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ...

Miles Fidelman-3
In reply to this post by Erwan David
On 3/13/17 12:44 PM, Erwan David wrote:

> Le 03/13/17 à 20:40, Greg Wooledge a écrit :
>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 12:30:11PM -0700, Patrick Bartek wrote:
>>> The Linux mantra has always been "choice," plethoras of choices. So why
>>> at install time, is there no choice for the init system?  You get what
>>> the developers decide. Yes, you can install a new one -- I've done it
>>> and it works -- but only after the install.  It'd be a lot easier, if
>>> there were a choice to begin with just like whether you want a GUI and
>>> which one.
>> Because the number of people who want to run a new version of Debian with
>> an ancient and deprecated init system is probably in the triple digits,
>> worldwide.
>>
>> You are a member of a small minority.  It's not reasonable to expect
>> that a whole bunch of time will be spent making install images with
>> alternative init systems for such a small demand.  You have a solution
>> which works just fine.
>>
> So why don't you use windows, if you despise minorities ?
> Your email is both insulting and contemptful. If this is your only
> argument, that's bad for the point you pretend to denfend.
+1

--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.  .... Yogi Berra

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ...

andy smith-10
In reply to this post by Miles Fidelman-3
Hello,

On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 01:48:28PM -0700, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> That might be because all of those who run servers - the traditional
> realm of Debian - have given up and migrated elsewhere.  We can't
> afford to run a poorly designed load of crap, that takes over one's
> machine, as an init system.

Speaking as someone who has preferred Debian on servers since woody,
I remain happy to run Debian on all my servers and am reasonably
happy with systemd. Any other Linux I could imagine ever switching
to also now runs systemd by default and I would be unlikely to seek
to change that.

I suspect that if you counted every instance of an init system
running "in the cloud", most of them would be systemd. The most
popular OS in the cloud is Ubuntu¹ - with systemd. CoreOS², which
was designed from scratch to be run in the cloud, includes systemd
as a non-optional component.

I am not aware of any mass exodus of server administrators away from
systemd. Quite the opposite in fact, simply because most
distributions switched to it.

It is perfectly okay for someone to dislike systemd, or any other
piece of software, but if you are going to make statements that
appear to be on behalf of all server administrators then I think you
need to show your working.

Cheers,
Andy

¹ http://www.zdnet.com/article/ubuntu-linux-continues-to-rule-the-cloud/

² https://coreos.com/docs/

--
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ...

Martin Read-2
In reply to this post by Patrick Bartek-2
On 13/03/17 19:30, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> The Linux mantra has always been "choice," plethoras of choices. So why
> at install time, is there no choice for the init system?

Looking at the BTS page for package 'debian-installer', nobody seems to
have filed a wishlist bug requesting this feature.

This seems like at least a contributory reason.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ...

Miles Fidelman-3
On 3/13/17 4:33 PM, Martin Read wrote:

> On 13/03/17 19:30, Patrick Bartek wrote:
>> The Linux mantra has always been "choice," plethoras of choices. So why
>> at install time, is there no choice for the init system?
>
> Looking at the BTS page for package 'debian-installer', nobody seems
> to have filed a wishlist bug requesting this feature.
>
> This seems like at least a contributory reason.

Actually, there have been numerous bugs filed against both
debian-installer and debootstrap about failures of the --include and
--exclude statements --- that directly effect the ability to specify
sysvinit instead of systemd.  I don't recall seeing close messages about
all of them.

Miles Fidelman



--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.  .... Yogi Berra

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ...

Martin Read-2
On 14/03/17 00:20, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Actually, there have been numerous bugs filed against both
> debian-installer and debootstrap about failures of the --include and
> --exclude statements --- that directly effect the ability to specify
> sysvinit instead of systemd.  I don't recall seeing close messages about
> all of them.

Ah. I hadn't gone delving into the details of the bugs, so I was just
going by bug titles.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ...

Jan-Peter Rühmann
In reply to this post by Patrick Bartek-2
I can´t understand this Discussion, as Normal user I even had not known that there are
more than one Init System (SystemV) and I don´t think that this should be chooseable. The
Installation is complicated enough dont make it more complex by adding choices which no
one understands.

By the way I am using Linux since 20Years. For me personally there is no Problem in
Installing another Init after Installation Therefore I don´t think it is needed as long
everything is running fine. I am using systemd and beeing perfectly happy with it had only
to do with it one time as I configured on access scan with clamd what is  not the most
important thing too I think.

Please end this Diskussion and get on with important things.

Am 13.03.2017 um 20:40 schrieb Patrick Bartek:

> The Linux mantra has always been "choice," plethoras of choices. So why
> at install time, is there no choice for the init system?  You get what
> the developers decide. Yes, you can install a new one -- I've done it
> and it works -- but only after the install.  It'd be a lot easier, if
> there were a choice to begin with just like whether you want a GUI and
> which one.
>
> Now, I know with LFS, you get to choose everything, etc.  But is a
> choice of init at install time so outrageous that no one ever
> considered it or is it technically unfeasible or something else.
>
> Just curious.
>
> B
Till then,

--

-=============================== Jan-Peter Rühmann & Kuma ===============================-
 Gubkower Str.7               [  Tel.:  +49 (38205) 65484  ]       [hidden email]
 18195 Prangendorf            [  FAX:   +49 (38205) 65212  ]      http://www.ruehmann.name
                              [  Tel.:  +49 (38205) 65215  ]
                              [  Mobil: +49 (162) 1316054  ]           IT-Servicetechniker
Skype: jan-peter_ruehmann / ICQ: 288192920 / WhatsApp: 491621316054 / Twitter: @JPRuehmann
-========================================================================================-
                  Die Verwendung der Daten zu Werbezwecken ist verboten.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ...

Liam O'Toole
In reply to this post by Erwan David
On 2017-03-13, Erwan David <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Le 03/13/17 à 20:40, Greg Wooledge a écrit :
>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 12:30:11PM -0700, Patrick Bartek wrote:
>>> The Linux mantra has always been "choice," plethoras of choices. So why
>>> at install time, is there no choice for the init system?  You get what
>>> the developers decide. Yes, you can install a new one -- I've done it
>>> and it works -- but only after the install.  It'd be a lot easier, if
>>> there were a choice to begin with just like whether you want a GUI and
>>> which one.
>>
>> Because the number of people who want to run a new version of Debian with
>> an ancient and deprecated init system is probably in the triple digits,
>> worldwide.
>>
>> You are a member of a small minority.  It's not reasonable to expect
>> that a whole bunch of time will be spent making install images with
>> alternative init systems for such a small demand.  You have a solution
>> which works just fine.
>>
>
> So why don't you use windows, if you despise minorities ?

Using Windows on a server or a phone would put you in a minority.

> Your email is both insulting and contemptful. If this is your only
> argument, that's bad for the point you pretend to denfend.

You are overreacting. Greg's point is that there is little demand for an
installer which allows a choice of init system, and that spending time
on providing such an installer would not be justified. You are welcome
to disagree with that assessment, but please leave out the emotional
codswallop.


--

Liam

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ...

Sven Hartge-5
In reply to this post by Martin Read-2
Martin Read <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On 13/03/17 19:30, Patrick Bartek wrote:

>> The Linux mantra has always been "choice," plethoras of choices. So
>> why at install time, is there no choice for the init system?

> Looking at the BTS page for package 'debian-installer', nobody seems
> to have filed a wishlist bug requesting this feature.

> This seems like at least a contributory reason.

Besides there are already solutions with pre-seeding to install
sysv-init instead of systemd.

Those really wanting an installation medium with systemd can easily
modify the existing ones to do just that instead of requiring that the
Debian Developers do this for them.

Grüße,
Sven.

--
Sigmentation fault. Core dumped.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ...

Miles Fidelman-3
In reply to this post by Liam O'Toole


On 3/14/17 4:37 AM, Liam O'Toole wrote:

> On 2017-03-13, Erwan David <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Le 03/13/17 à 20:40, Greg Wooledge a écrit :
>>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 12:30:11PM -0700, Patrick Bartek wrote:
>>>> The Linux mantra has always been "choice," plethoras of choices. So why
>>>> at install time, is there no choice for the init system?  You get what
>>>> the developers decide. Yes, you can install a new one -- I've done it
>>>> and it works -- but only after the install.  It'd be a lot easier, if
>>>> there were a choice to begin with just like whether you want a GUI and
>>>> which one.
>>> Because the number of people who want to run a new version of Debian with
>>> an ancient and deprecated init system is probably in the triple digits,
>>> worldwide.
>>>
>>> You are a member of a small minority.  It's not reasonable to expect
>>> that a whole bunch of time will be spent making install images with
>>> alternative init systems for such a small demand.  You have a solution
>>> which works just fine.
>>>
>> So why don't you use windows, if you despise minorities ?
> Using Windows on a server or a phone would put you in a minority.
>
>> Your email is both insulting and contemptful. If this is your only
>> argument, that's bad for the point you pretend to denfend.
> You are overreacting. Greg's point is that there is little demand for an
> installer which allows a choice of init system, and that spending time
> on providing such an installer would not be justified. You are welcome
> to disagree with that assessment, but please leave out the emotional
> codswallop.
>
There USED TO BE a lot of demand for a choice of installer at init time
- from pretty much all of us who object to systemd.  Nobody listened,
eventually people gave up, and a lot moved to other distros.

Miles Fidelman


--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.  .... Yogi Berra

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ...

Liam O'Toole
On 2017-03-14, Miles Fidelman <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
> On 3/14/17 4:37 AM, Liam O'Toole wrote:
>> On 2017-03-13, Erwan David <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Le 03/13/17 à 20:40, Greg Wooledge a écrit :
>>>> On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 12:30:11PM -0700, Patrick Bartek wrote:
>>>>> The Linux mantra has always been "choice," plethoras of choices. So why
>>>>> at install time, is there no choice for the init system?  You get what
>>>>> the developers decide. Yes, you can install a new one -- I've done it
>>>>> and it works -- but only after the install.  It'd be a lot easier, if
>>>>> there were a choice to begin with just like whether you want a GUI and
>>>>> which one.
>>>> Because the number of people who want to run a new version of Debian with
>>>> an ancient and deprecated init system is probably in the triple digits,
>>>> worldwide.
>>>>
>>>> You are a member of a small minority.  It's not reasonable to expect
>>>> that a whole bunch of time will be spent making install images with
>>>> alternative init systems for such a small demand.  You have a solution
>>>> which works just fine.
>>>>
>>> So why don't you use windows, if you despise minorities ?
>> Using Windows on a server or a phone would put you in a minority.
>>
>>> Your email is both insulting and contemptful. If this is your only
>>> argument, that's bad for the point you pretend to denfend.
>> You are overreacting. Greg's point is that there is little demand for an
>> installer which allows a choice of init system, and that spending time
>> on providing such an installer would not be justified. You are welcome
>> to disagree with that assessment, but please leave out the emotional
>> codswallop.
>>
> There USED TO BE a lot of demand for a choice of installer at init time
> - from pretty much all of us who object to systemd.  Nobody listened,
> eventually people gave up, and a lot moved to other distros.
>
> Miles Fidelman
>
>

As I said, you are welcome to disagree with Greg's assessment.

By the way, do you have any evidence (other than anecdotal) of an
upsurge in support for non-systemd distros? You have mentioned it twice
in this thread already.

--

Liam

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ...

Glenn Holmer-2
In reply to this post by Miles Fidelman-3
On 03/14/2017 01:53 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote:

> There USED TO BE a lot of demand for a choice of installer at init time
> - from pretty much all of us who object to systemd.  Nobody listened,
> eventually people gave up, and a lot moved to other distros.

Really? How many people switched away from Debian over systemd?

--
Glenn Holmer (Linux registered user #16682)
"After the vintage season came the aftermath -- and Cenbe."

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ...

Sven Hartge-5
In reply to this post by Miles Fidelman-3
Miles Fidelman <[hidden email]> wrote:

> There USED TO BE a lot of demand for a choice of installer at init
> time - from pretty much all of us who object to systemd.  Nobody
> listened, eventually people gave up, and a lot moved to other distros.

Can we please not have this discussion for the umpteenth time? Thank
you.

Grüße,
Sven.

--
Sigmentation fault. Core dumped.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ...

Jonathan Dowland
In reply to this post by Patrick Bartek-2
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 12:30:11PM -0700, Patrick Bartek wrote:
> The Linux mantra has always been "choice," plethoras of choices. So why
> at install time, is there no choice for the init system?  You get what
> the developers decide. Yes, you can install a new one -- I've done it
> and it works -- but only after the install.  It'd be a lot easier, if
> there were a choice to begin with just like whether you want a GUI and
> which one.

Adding more options to the installer is not free: it's at a cost of complexity
for the installer code-base, complexity and length for users selecting options
when they install and risks confusion for users who aren't familiar with the
background and might not know what choice to make. When weighing up whether to
add a question or not, the developers need to take all that into consideration.
For something like the init system, the vast majority of users will either be
happy with the default, or simply not care. I think it makes sense the way
things are.

For advanced users, asides from using pre-seeding as someone else has
mentioned, with the 'expert mode' installer you have the option for manual
package selection; so you can use that to set things as you want them during
the install.

Everyone gets their cake and can eat it!

--
Jonathan Dowland
Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.

signature.asc (836 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ...

Jonathan Dowland
In reply to this post by Miles Fidelman-3
On Mon, Mar 13, 2017 at 01:50:02PM -0700, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> +1

If you're talking about my kill-file, it's actually +2 from this thread
so far.
 

--
Jonathan Dowland
Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.

signature.asc (836 bytes) Download Attachment
1234