Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Shall we fork Fedora?

forkfedora.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 49 posts

Re: Shall we fork Fedora?

#21

Post by dmix »

p8952 wrote: post #9

It's probably a bad idea to start (another) discussion on this topic, but... While the original (Debian Fork) made some ridiculous claims, this is not a fair comparison to make. As a neutral party I don't think I've seen anyone make the argument that SysVinit is any good, just that some other options may be better, and they should at least be an option. When you compare systemd with something like OpenRC the obvious…

Agreed, there is only one argument provided by this page and it's based on a false pretense, a straw man. Making this page very ineffective.

Re: Shall we fork Fedora?

#22

Post by 4ad »

The argument presented is very weak. Yes, the service file is smaller and simpler, but I actually understand perfectly the init file, whereas to understand how systemd processes the service file I'd have to actually read all of systemd's source code.

Programs have many bugs. I'd rather debug that shell script than debug systemd.

Re: Shall we fork Fedora?

#23

Post by 23david »

jbb555 wrote: post #11

Trying to work out which linux dist to switch to. Obviously one that doesn't use systemd. So what choices do I have?

Not too many options surprisingly...

Linux from scratch has a runit-for-lfs project here: https://code.google.com/p/runit-for-lfs/

github mirror: https://github.com/inthecloud247/runit-for-lfs

I've also been keeping an eye on voidlinux: http://www.voidlinux.eu

Re: Shall we fork Fedora?

#26

Post by notacoward »

As much as I love the Fedora folks, I think this is going to backfire. It comes off as even more condescending than the Debian-fork it mocks, and condescension is already one of the gripes people have.

NB not taking a position, just making a prediction

Re: Shall we fork Fedora?

#27

Post by Vendan »

cwyers wrote: post #15

From the debianfork.org page, which this is apparently mocking: "Why don't you do that yourselves? We are excluded from voting on the issue: only few of us have the time and patience to interact with Debian on a voluntary basis." If you don't have the time and patience to contribute to a project like Debian, how are you planning to muster up the time and patience to run a full-on FORK of Debian?

from the page:

[edit/clarification] Since this seems to be one of the most prominent critiques, we'd like to clarify this point. With lack of time and patience we refer to our possibility to be involved in a complex bureaucratic system like the one governing Debian. While we respect this way of working, we think that our time is better invested in new directions, also according to our expertise.

Re: Shall we fork Fedora?

#28

Post by 23david »

p8952 wrote: post #9

It's probably a bad idea to start (another) discussion on this topic, but... While the original (Debian Fork) made some ridiculous claims, this is not a fair comparison to make. As a neutral party I don't think I've seen anyone make the argument that SysVinit is any good, just that some other options may be better, and they should at least be an option. When you compare systemd with something like OpenRC the obvious…

OpenRC is interesting. Also compare with a runit example of managing sendmail from the runit-for-lfs project:

    #!/bin/sh
    sv check slapd postgresql mysql >/dev/null || exit 0
    exec /usr/sbin/sendmail -bs -bd -q5m start
https://github.com/inthecloud247/runit-for-lfs/blob/master/b...

Re: Shall we fork Fedora?

#29

Post by dsr_ »

cwyers wrote: post #15

From the debianfork.org page, which this is apparently mocking: "Why don't you do that yourselves? We are excluded from voting on the issue: only few of us have the time and patience to interact with Debian on a voluntary basis." If you don't have the time and patience to contribute to a project like Debian, how are you planning to muster up the time and patience to run a full-on FORK of Debian?

Short answer, because I've said it before: You can't vote on Debian issues without becoming a Debian Developer; that title requires a multistep process that takes between months and years. Debian publishes the stats at nm.debian.org, and there is general agreement that the length of the process is a problem, but not on how to solve it.

Re: Shall we fork Fedora?

#30

Post by staticshock »

4ad wrote: post #22

The argument presented is very weak. Yes, the service file is smaller and simpler, but I actually understand perfectly the init file, whereas to understand how systemd processes the service file I'd have to actually read all of systemd's source code. Programs have many bugs. I'd rather debug that shell script than debug systemd.

Sure, debug that shell script, but then don't forget to propagate the fix to all the shell scripts.

The shell script approach violates the DRY principle--it's probably super similar to some 50 other init scripts on the same system. systemd, in principle, removes the boilerplate so that the bug would only have to be fixed once.

Post reply on HN