Comment Re:Yep (Score 1) 450
You missed the point completely.
I missed part of the point, yes. But...
The point is that people complaining that Debian changed the default init system and that there is currently a GR to make it mandatory for upstream developers to make sure their packages run at least systemd plus something else.
Which is kind of a sour grapes reaction to the fact that systemd is a pretty much of an all-or-nothing proposal. Back in the day, I worked on a distro that was based on RedHat, but which used DJB's service management system in order to handle the status of a couple of particularly bedeviling services. It wasn't pretty, so I have sympathy both with sysadmins who don't want to see things change utterly, and with systemd devs who don't want to have to try to shim service management onto the existing pile of cruft.
But....
People just used sysvinit because it was the default one....
They did not. They bitched and moaned and wrote their own alternatives.
... and nobody complained "but I want to replace sysvinit with xxxx and still have everything function easily".
They did, actually, if only implicitly. This is why none of the would-be replacements ever really took off. People do want any sysvinit replacement to be more or less transparent. And their expectation has yet to be met. You can argue the merits of systemd, you can claim that it's worth the pain, but you cannot with a straight face ignore a lot of history that led to the place we are today.
It's been tacitly understood that when introducing an incompatible system, you're swimming against a very strong tide. The refusal of both camps to achieve a workable compromise is a problem of mutually incompatible visions. The willingness of both sides to impute irrationality on the opposite camp without pausing to reflect on their own stance is a primary source of the continuing rancour.