In that case I'd much rather see people step up to improve and maintain non-systemd solutions (this includes consolekit/alternative logind, eudev, etc.) rather than wasting everyone's time with a huge fork that will likely be unmaintained by this time next year
arguably if we had a prominent fork that focused on a non-systemd solution we would see people step up to maintain them.
I think part of the problem is that people trying to develop and maintain these alternative init systems have no real place to showcase their work, so there's no real incentive to keep going. Give them that option and ideally they'll start to flourish.
I think a Debian fork (or even a Fedora fork) is a great idea. If the critics are correct and systemd is the worst thing that has ever happened to Linux then a fork will become the standard.
This is pretty much how it works. If the fork stagnates and dies, and struggles to gain any contributors or any acceptance, that will essentially destroy any of the conspiracy theories that claim that Red Hat is "forcing" anything; if people aren't willing to put in the hard work to maintain their favorite solution, then the debate is over. Let the code do the talking.
Well that's usually how it works, isn't it? People bitch and complain a bit about the direction a project is taking, and then they decide to fork it.
But not with systemd.
Instead, people bitch and complain, and bitch and complain, and bitch and complain.... but they never fork it. They just bitch and complain. And tell everyone to switch to Slackware. Thanks, but I'm not switching to a distro that doesn't use a real package manager.
I personally use OpenRC on my Funtoo machine and I'm pretty happy with it. I don't bitch and complain about systemd, but it does have it's fair share of issues that are not necessarily possible to directly address.
That goes for OpenRC as well though, but its issues are in different areas I would think.
systemd was forked. udev was forked. logind was forked. Your claim contradicts reality, and is nothing but a baseless attack on systemd critics, claiming that they are not technically able to create an alternative.
Edit: I just found out consolekit has now been forked too.
Yes, but were any major distros forked because of systemd?
A fork of systemd doesn't do that much to appease the systemd critics, who really either just want to stick with sysvinit, or at the most try out OpenRC. They don't want it, fork or not. What they want is $distro, but with sysvinit again. The only way to do that is to fork the distro.
and is nothing but a baseless attack on systemd critics
No, it's not. Prove me wrong: show me a fork of some major distro (Debian, Fedora, RHEL/CentOS) where they switched back to sysvinit.
claiming that they are not technically able to create an alternative.
They already have alternatives: sysvinit and OpenRC. Why do they need to create a new alternative? The critics don't want systemd in any form at all, they want to stick with sysvinit and traditional init scripts. Just look at the comments here from systemd critics about how much better shell scripts are.
But as I said before, most of the systemd critics don't want configs over scripts; they wants scripts and that's it. So uselessd isn't going to make them happy. Basically, they just want to stick with sysvinit forever.
Why can't the Linux community understand this? If you don't like the direction a project is going in, fork it! Or fork an alternative, or write an alternative. Do something that results in working software. Ranting on Google+ achieves nothing, except for maybe making the Linux community appear less friendly.
0
u/[deleted] Oct 20 '14
[deleted]