Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
> 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…
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.