I get that there's a lot of politics in Debian. I also get that systemd is a controversial topic, but is this really a vote that just came out with the result that no vote was needed?

How many votes will there be about systemd in Debian that will turn out inconclusive?

Also, I have yet to see a single article of somebody running into all the various horror scenarios envisioned by adversaries of systemd. I mean: Multiple distros have already switched and there still aren't that many blog posts about systems dying in flames because of the switch.

I would so love for this discussion to happen based on technical merits and (by now actually available) real world experiences than FUD (on both sides)

I think this is the last vote related to systemd for a while.

There can only be a single default init system obviously, so a vote was required there. It was a hot topic, no need to rehash this.

The second vote, initiated by Ian Jackson, was controversial from the start. A lot of people were tired about the init topic and wanted to move on, and didn't want the GR. And they got the majority here: the result of the vote is "General Resolution is not required". This is the majority clearly expressing it's now time to move on. And to be honest I'm happy about this, although I'm just a Debian user and do not vote. With this, it's now unlikely to be another vote.

And this desire to move on can be now felt on all sides of the argument, hence the resignations and people moving to other things. I just want to point out that except for Joey Hess (really sorry about that) all are still remaining part of Debian. They just move out of the TC (or systemd maintainership) but are still DD, working on some parts of Debian.

And now, hopefully, everyone can cool off and move to other things too.

If adopting systemd actually broke everything, then of course they'd be doing something else instead. The anti-systemd crowd looks at this issue the way you might look at someone who took a working piece of software, and then did a completely correct transformation of all loops and conditionals to use bare gotos.

It's not incorrect to do that. Nothing crashes. It might actually even be faster or use less memory if you were sufficiently clever about it. However, the argument is that you just bought yourself a future full of pain and misery for not a big enough present gain.

Look at poor technical decisions from the past. The earliest browsers were encouraged to be liberal in what they accepted (an adaptation of Postel's law to HTML parsing). I think a lot of people today regard that as a decision that probably held the internet back by a decade -- think of the time we wasted writing compatibility layers and artificially restricting what our web pages could do. But it wasn't immediately obvious that that was the case. It took 10 or 15 years for the implications of that decision to really hit home.

What happens next is not a collapse of the world. It's a slow accrual of follow-up decisions that are needed to keep the lights on, until one day you look at the Eldritch horror you've had to build over 10 years and go, "Jesus, that was a bone-headed idea." Maybe they're completely wrong in opposing it, but systemd isn't anywhere near old enough to have decided that just yet.

Someone needs to dedicate an academic thesis to documenting how systemd advocates pulled off their coup, and what improvements are needed to OSS governance structures to prevent a repeat. By the time the pain becomes visible, no one will remember how the actual decision got made.

I don't think there's any vast conspiracy to understand or try to prevent. sysvinit has actual problems, and systemd solves many of them. I'm one of the ones who finds it ugly/inelegant/gross aesthetically, but it did address issues people wanted addressed.

And there wasn't a faultless alternative either. It's not like upstart or sysvinit was so good that you need to invent anything to explain why systemd won out. It won out because people either don't share my mild aversion to its design or because they chose functionality on Linux over elegance/portability/fill-in-your-own-thing. And hey, that's a Pareto-optimal choice as well.

A bunch of devs scratching itches, Just so happened that their scratching sticks where tired together and covered in super glue.

Yes definitely, and the thesis should discuss in detail the role of the Illuminati in getting systemd adopted, and provide a by-the-minute protocol of what went down at Area 51.

Add astro-turfing to the list of thesis topics, e.g. use the HN API to perform clique analysis of the many systemd threads on HN.

The sole voice of truth in the entire thread, down voted for telling an uncomfortable bit of it.

Look how they buried me for even mentioning it.

The outcome of the vote was something roughly like, "The General Resolution (GR) process is not the right venue to resolve this issue". The GR process has traditionally been used rarely, and mainly for "meta" things (deciding how Debian Developers are approved, that kind of thing). So it's not a huge surprise that sentiment against involving the GR process in the "init wars" was high.

All GRs also have a meta-option of "more discussion needed". Sort of a "no confidence" vote on all the candidates/options although in actual use unless it comes in first, when ranking it creates a border something like "absolutely positively no way". Technically the "no GR needed" people were abusing the system and should have just put "more discussion needed" as their highest rank. Its the same concept but this is a "funny" rephrasing of the same concept.

Perhaps the only thing everyone on all sides can agree on is funny, is that "further discussion" didn't get many votes. Somewhere last night I read a quote about there's hundreds on each side but only nine masochists who voted for "further discussion"

I keep seeing the odd one over at G+.

One i found some months back when the whole systemd issue got my attention was of someone that ended up doing a parallel arch install to read the journald logs.

Going from memory the problem seemed to be that he could not run the required command to get the logs dumped into readable form without systemd running as pid1. And systemd was refusing to boot for no apparent reason.

Thats the kind of thing that will get seasoned admins, that are used to cat being all you need to get at the logs, backing away with a "no way, no how".

This “binary logs!” thing is approaching FUD-like levels. “The logs” will not be binary. The logs will be where they have always been, in the format they have always been in. Sure, journald has some binary logs of its own, but it puts all the log messages also into the normal syslog daemon, so nothing changes.

As far as I can tell, the whole brouhaha started when there was a bug in the packaging of syslog-ng so it would not start properly after installing systemd. Since syslog-ng was not running, the only logs left were journald’s binary logs, and people assumed that “systemd ate my log files!”. No. It was a bug, the bug was not even in systemd, your log files will always be where you want them.

Unless you uninstall your syslog daemon, but then you are on your own.

Either I'm using journald to log to a binary format, or I'm having journald forward everything to syslog. If I'm trying to avoid binary logs in the first place, then there's really no point for journald to be running--just forward directly to syslog in the first place. Journald is just dead weight in this use-case.

Actually, journald exists for a number of reasons, listed here:

https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1IC9yOXj7j6cdLLxWEBA...