Hacker News Reader

Comment by notriddle | Hacker News Reader

> 1. Not having packages depend on systemd.

This implies either (a) refusing packages that depend on systemd, or (b) patching packages. Which brings us right back to the original problem: who's on the hook for making sure it works?

> 2. Bringing up a prompt/dialog during installation to make a choice of whether or not to use it.

https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/12/choices/

... okay, I admit I also need to offer a reason why it's okay for Debian to offer the install options that they do offer, while they also refuse to offer this option, and can't really come up with one. The way that Debian allows you to pick a desktop environment at install time, while not allowing you to pick an init system, is a bit of an arbitrary decision.

But the decision being arbitrary isn't a reason to offer every single theoretically possible option at install time. Debian never allowed you to pick an init system at install time before! Why start now?

View on HN

> who's on the hook for making sure it works?

Well, Devuan people made it work, while also maintaining an entire distro fork. This could easily have been made to work on Debian. The alternative would have been to lean on GNOME, I think.

> every single theoretically possible option at install time

systemd-or-not is not "every single theoretically possible option". It is a highly contentious and political issue. If the systemd proponents would have accepted defaulting to no-systemd, then great, no need for the choice; but realistically, both sides are somewhat adamant, so making the user choose is a reasonable compromise IMHO.

> systemd-or-not is not "every single theoretically possible option"

Of course not. It's an arbitrary line, because the line has to be drawn somewhere.

> It is a highly contentious and political issue.

Most people don't care one way or the other.

> If the systemd proponents would have accepted defaulting to no-systemd, then great, no need for the choice; but realistically, both sides are somewhat adamant, so making the user choose is a reasonable compromise IMHO.

How is leaking internally-facing political issues into the out-of-the-box experience in any way acceptable?!

It's an almost perfect reflection of exactly the reason Joel On Software hates prompting people up-front with configuration options; by refusing to pick a reasonable default, the small number of people who actually care one way or the other are forcing everyone else to deal with their baggage. First-time Debian users completely lack the context to make such a choice, and anyone who does care knows where to look for information on how to switch over a system after it's installed.

> Of course not. It's an arbitrary line, because the line has to be drawn somewhere.

It's not a "line". Some choices are presented to the user, and some aren't.

> Most people don't care one way or the other.

If that were the case, then great - no-systemd by default.

No, the point is that the _people involved with the distribution_ care.

> How is leaking internally-facing political issues into the out-of-the-box experience in any way acceptable?!

Either people come to an agreement about a default; or they have a fight and split up; or they let the user decide.

... actually, there could be another option, which is a "mixed strategy", i.e. the installer flips a coin instead of asking the user. That could also be a compromise, which doesn't require bother the user. It has its own detriments though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com