2017-02-15 7:30 GMT+01:00 John Luke Gibson <eaterjolly@gmail.com>:
Perhaps it is the idea that a linux machine should be wholly modular
and attaching a library to a critical component of the system,
shouldn't be a viable strategy for popularizing one's work.
True
 

When a distro is forced to carry a package due to a dependency of a
dependency, or any magnitude there of, it breaks a core separation of
power there. The users depend on distro's to provide reliable
packages, however if a package is intentionally interweaving files to
make these dependencies simply a part of the file and therefore
robbing the distro's the ability to choose a different dependency
should another developer or team thereof prove more reliable or more
suited for their distro.

It's not really about "files". It's about functionality.

The reason for an "init" system is automation. In order to have a "functional " desktop a log of services need to be running. 

Different functionality requirements require different "init" systems. So in order for software to support all different "init" systems you need to go an extra mile which not  every maintainers is willing to do.

So for distro's to support multiple "init" systems they need to modify/enhance software from others. And they need to test all possible configurations. Which is extra effort not everyone is willing to do.
 

Systemd in this sense would be like microsoft robbing those wishing to
distinguish themselves of the ability by increasing the magnitude of
difficulty in doing so.

If I read the discomfort correctly the systemd maintainers are too focused on their own use case and seek to little collaboration with the rest of the community during development.

This results in issues for people with "corner" cases, which don't get resolved. And massive code dumps which result in massive rewrites too get support from the rest of the community.

This is indeed quite similar to a closed source business like Microsoft. The company sets their goals and developers need to follow the goals set by the company. Not the goals set by others or what might even be a beter goal for the user. 

I think in the end, the one that pays decides. To change code you need time. That time needs to be paid. Individual developers can donate time they have left after earning that by other work. Company's can donate time of employees. But the time spent must be paid, either by other work or by the result of the donated time. Usually it is the latter so that's why company's decide where time is spent within a project.

But for a OS project to be successful you need to consider the needs of others so it's a balancing act. 
 

Now, keep in mind, I am not fluent in any programming language and
have not audited Systemd, nor do I know anyone who has. This is based
on a compiled understanding of observations expressed in arguments
both infavor and against Systemd.

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk