
Ian Jackson Resigns from Debian Technical Committee - onestone
https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/11/msg00091.html
======
privong
Can someone provide context for this? I am not familiar with Debian and do not
know the back-story.

Also, I assume this is not directly related to the recent resignation[0] of
Heen. But does the resignation of two people (whose resignations were deemed
worthy of being voted to near the top of the HN front page) within a few day
span suggest concernening structural issues or is this just poisson statistics
at work?

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8617874](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8617874)

~~~
danieldk
You missed some:

[https://lwn.net/Articles/621895/](https://lwn.net/Articles/621895/)
[https://lwn.net/Articles/621003/](https://lwn.net/Articles/621003/)
[https://lwn.net/Articles/620879/](https://lwn.net/Articles/620879/)
[https://lwn.net/Articles/620878/](https://lwn.net/Articles/620878/)
[https://lwn.net/Articles/619749/](https://lwn.net/Articles/619749/)

They are related in the sense that are all fall-out of the struggle to
integrate or block systemd in Debian and/or how it exposed some problems with
the Debian constitution.

It's a shame to see that so much talent is lost and frustrated over what in my
eyes seems to be a small issue. systemd and Upstart are both a large
improvement over the System V init scripts. So, it's quite logical that it
should be replaced at some point. Since systemd seems to have the most
traction in other major distributions and upstream software, it makes sense to
make that the default, while making it still possible to switch to Upstart et
al. if someone wants to (at the risk of losing support for some upstream
software).

If it turns out in three years that systemd is a dead-end, rip it out, and use
whatever is better then. Distributions did that with devfs, the old hotplug
scripts, egcs (which was merged back in mainline), etc.

~~~
Shish2k
I'm starting to wonder if this is a problem with modern culture in general --
all over the place I'm seeing less "let's try our different approaches and see
who has the best end result" and more "I will rape you to death with a flaming
donkey for not running your project my way". It's like nobody wants to do any
work to demonstrate that their way is superior, they just want to sit back and
bitch about how the other way is inferior, until the other team gives up and
our overall result is nothing :-/

(See also: both sides on pretty much any political issue in the past few
years)

~~~
jjoonathan
Both sides did lots of work to make their solution better and each side had a
sizable list of legitimate advantages over the other. The ultimate decision
came down to a subjective value judgement about which advantages were more
important and inevitably wound up ignoring about half of those honestly held
priorities (not to mention the work that went into Upstart). I don't see how
it could have happened any other way.

It's sad that people resigned over it but the pain itself seems unavoidable
from where I'm sitting.

~~~
Shish2k
> the pain itself seems unavoidable from where I'm sitting.

If there's enough time and energy in the community to be throwing death
threats around, surely there is enough energy to maintain debian/systemd and
debian/upstart as separate distros, both of which live happily ever after,
sharing the 99.999% of code and infrastructure that they have in common? Then
if one side really IS technically superior, people will naturally end up
moving to that one and the other will die a gentle natural death, no personal
attacks and resignations needed.

(For example, see what happened when Canonical wanted Debian to be more apple-
like -- they didn't send death threats to Debian developers, they just did the
work that they wanted to see done, and now both projects are a great success)

~~~
digi_owl
That was the Linux community of old. These days it seems it is the old hats
that is required to fork if they want to maintain their tried and true ways
rather than risk their systems to a massive switchover.

------
ClashTheBunny
Ladies and gentlemen, this is open source at work. Open source empowers people
and if you don't like it some way, you have the power to move on.

There are so many other platforms that this will never be possible on. Don't
like something in Windows, tough. Don't like something in OS X, tough. Don't
like something in Linux, xBSD, etc? Fork or go home.

I'm excited to see what happens next and if it will be folded back into Debian
in the future.

~~~
lmm
We used to say "linux is about choice". It was a point of pride for Debian
that it ran on dozens of platforms - multiple architectures, multiple kernels
even - that multiple desktop environments were available, multiple MTAs,
multiple webservers, all fully supported, all benefiting from the shared
infrastructure and spirit of collaboration. Debian runs on enormous Itanium
servers and tiny ARM chips, and it doesn't need a fork to do so.

It's sad to see an end to this era - and it's an end that's been brought not
by Dr Jackson (who's been part of Debian for decades) but by SystemD abusing
the spirit of openness, following the letter of open source but not the spirit
of open standards, of allowing a diversity of solutions to blossom and letting
users mix and match whatever best suits their needs.

There will be a fork; there are enough people who care about good engineering
not to let this lie (unless they all turn to FreeBSD). But it's sad that it's
come to this, and it shouldn't have happened this way.

~~~
pantalaimon
how many init systems could you chose from before systemd?

~~~
morganvachon
I think you missed the point. Prior to systemd, Debian was truly the universal
operating system in the sense that it ran on just about anything, and you
could swap out the kernel (not a trivial thing to do, but possible) for the
FreeBSD kernel, for example. Because systemd is Linux-only, this is no longer
possible. Because the list of smaller userspace utilities dependent on systemd
is growing faster every day, it's likely that Debian will end up being no
different from Arch, Fedora, RedHat, or Mandriva overall, apart from the
package manager. Basically GNU/Linux is becoming GNU/systemd/Linux.

Some people don't have a problem with that, some do. In the end it's not about
choosing an init system; indeed, I think a lot of the arguments and opposition
to systemd would go away if systemd were interchangeable with any other init.
But that's not the case; if your distro of choice has decided to go with
systemd, then you're running systemd or you're not booting (yes, there are
shims in Debian right now but they exist only for migration purposes).

~~~
fluidcruft
You seem to be confusing Debian with NetBSD...

~~~
morganvachon
How so? Debian runs on more architectures and with more flexibility (prior to
current events) than any other GNU/Linux. NetBSD also runs on just about
anything, including toasters, but systemd isn't an issue there since it won't
work on any BSD. I'm not sure why you would think that I was confused about it
at all.

------
CJefferson
This is the 3rd person to resign in 10 days (Colin Watson, Russ Allbery and
now Ian Jackson).

~~~
danohuiginn
That's 3 of the 8-member Technical Committee, which is the group that's
ultimately responsible for all technical decisions in Debian.

~~~
_delirium
That's a bit of an overstatement; it's responsible for very few technical
decisions in Debian, and doesn't normally have even a theoretical ultimate-
decision-maker role of regularly reviewing or steering them. Their only role
is technical dispute-resolution, and they are supposed to wade into even that
as minimally as possible. Most technical decisions are made by a mixture of
individual package maintainers, the Debian Project Leader and release-
management team, and informal consensus-building. To the extent there's an
"ultimate" technical decision-maker, I would say for the majority of issues,
the release team working with the project leader functions in that role.

------
badgersandjam
This is a confidence builder for migrating my two servers to FreeBSD from
Debian. I don't have a problem with systemd from a technical perspective but I
do have a _big_ problem with politics getting in the way of progress or
forcing hands.

~~~
yaantc
Then be happy: the result of the vote is a clear majority of Debian developers
saying "no more politics on this init topic" (by rejecting this GR as
uneeded).

In all group of a given size there's bound to be some amount of politics, even
if it's desirable to keep it low. What's specific to Debian is that 1) it's
big 2) it's fully open. That makes any emotionally loaded discussion noisy and
widely heard. One just has to understand, accept and keep cool about this.
Sausage taste best when you don't know how they're made for sure, but I still
like the Debian sausage anyway ;)

~~~
exarch
>the result of the vote is a clear majority of Debian developers saying "no
more politics on this init topic"

No, it's a thin majority of devs saying, "lets not make a decision of any
kind, so please continue fighting these political battles amongst yourselves".

Just wait for Jessie, you'll see. Package dependencies are going to become the
next huge political football.

------
toyg
If I had a penny for every Debian bust-up I've read about on LWN...

Debian will survive. That constitutional document and those processes people
like to moan about all the time, are the same document and processes that
ensured Debian's success, solidity and continuous development. For every great
engineer stepping down, I'm sure Debian will attract new talent who wants to
make a difference. For every controversial decision like on systemd, there
will be a time when that decision will be either vindicated or corrected. Like
the Linux kernel, the Debian project is now too big to die because of a single
but controversial technical choice.

~~~
e7620
systemd is not an init system, that's how it started, but they state they want
to comprise a whole OS.

Debian may seem too big to die, but they are slowly being commoditized away,
because RedHat is known to offer better sales force, better service and
support:

    
    
       How do you differentiate your product if your core mission is to ensure
       that your product operates exactly as your competition?  The bottom
       line is that you don't

~~~
toyg
_> because RedHat is known to offer better sales force, better service and
support_

When did Debian ever offer support or sales? Debian is not a corporation, it
works under a different paradigm. Debian will be the last Linux distribution
to die, and it might even survive as a non-Linux OS. As long as there are
people who can benefit from a free open-source operating system, and people
willing to dedicate their time to make it possible, Debian will live on.

~~~
e7620
That's precisely the point, it's part of the quote, the more Debian
standardizes on the upcoming systemd distro, it'll get erased by RedHat real
fast, who offers a differentiating advantage.

    
    
       How do you differentiate your product if your core mission is to ensure
       that your product operates exactly as your competition?  The bottom
       line is that you don't .... Theoretically, you could have a better
       sales force or better service and support .... Yet these are the assets
       of the larger, entrenched companies.
    

> As long as there are people who can benefit from a free open-source
> operating system

As if Debian were the only free open-source OS... Not even considering only
GNU/Linux, where Slackware was first (why not also last?).

> and people willing to dedicate their time

A complete OS will take much more than that, if Debian loses relevance, people
will leave. What differentiating advantage to choose Debian over CentOS or
Fedora? Debian will have to fight that battle, being or not a corporation is
irrelevant.

I hope Debian endures, but you have to understand that systemd standardization
is not going to be positive to Debian relevance.

~~~
toyg
_> As if Debian were the only free open-source OS_

It's the only free open-source OS backed by an explicitly democratic approach,
enshrined in its constitution. It's "the GNU System that works, will always be
Free, and will give an equal say to any developer" (at least in theory). All
the other distributions are owned by a specific group of people (or in the
RedHat case, by shareholders) and/or are not Free. That's the Debian
differentiator that RedHat will never be able to match, no matter how many
"community editions" they sponsor.

 _> What differentiating advantage to choose Debian over CentOS or Fedora?_

Those are both owned by a corporation.

 _> being or not a corporation is irrelevant_

I respectfully disagree there. You just have to look at the evolution of the
Linux ecosystem to see how "being or not a corporation" makes a huge
difference. History is littered with corpses of Linux vendors. In fact, there
is an argument for big Linux projects being naturally incapable of making
money as corporations in the long run, a concept that was seriously challenged
only by RedHat and Ubuntu at this point.

 _> you have to understand that systemd standardization is not going to be
positive to Debian relevance._

My point is, if that's the case, the project will likely have the necessary
strength to reconsider and correct this choice later on. It's not like they
can "run out of money" or something like that; they have such a huge mindshare
that it would take ages to dissipate, and votes seem to indicate that most
developers don't really care about the init system that much. If things come
to worst, Jesse will just go down in history as a terrible release (wouldn't
be the first...) and the project will move on.

If anything, it's downstream projects that have to worry (i.e. Ubuntu) since
_they_ have to differentiate in a competitive market, but they seem to have
already adopted systemd, so...

~~~
e7620
> "being or not a corporation" makes a huge difference

Take a look at Mozilla, they implemented DRM, otherwise they could have lost
relevance, they explained.

Now Debian must commit resources just making everything work with every new
"innovation" brought by systemd. RedHat will dictate the pace and the terms,
Debian will follow, and once the future "systemd + linux OS" integration has
been declared standard, they can't correct the decision, they will be stuck
with "systemd OS" forever.

~~~
toyg
That's as much a guess as mine. We'll see in time.

------
peterwwillis
If all these people dropping out of Debian is due to systemd, somebody needs
to step up and force some kind of compromise. (I have no clue who; does Debian
have a Dictator For Life position?) I may not like systemd, but I sure as shit
would find some way to coexist with it rather than drive people away from a
project.

~~~
lmm
> If all these people dropping out of Debian is due to systemd, somebody needs
> to step up and force some kind of compromise.

That's what Ian Jackson proposed - that while systemd would be the default,
Debian would fully support users using other systems (bugs that only affected
SysV users would be considered equally critical). He was voted down, hence his
resignation. The systemd folks don't seem to be interested in compromise.

~~~
Xylakant
From what I gathered following the discussion the problematic option was
actually "no package that depends on systemd and does not provide an
alternative that works with sysV is permitted". That would require that
somebody provides the code to make the alternative way viable, work that
neither the upstream would do nor the maintainers were willing to shoulder.
It's fine to make that demand, but if you do, IMHO you should also step
forward and say "and because this is what we propose, we will be providing
said code."

~~~
teddyh
Yes. Saying “We permit systemd to exist in Debian, but we will not permit any
packages which uses systemd’s extra features or advantages.” is hardly a
compromise.

~~~
wtbob
Neither, of course, is saying, 'we will permit packages to fail to work with
any init system other than systemd.'

~~~
Xylakant
why not? If a package leverages functionality that only systemd provides and
users want to have install package, they have to bite that bullet and install
systemd.

What are the alternatives? You can't force the upstream or the package
maintainer to invest the extra work to make the package work without systemd,
you're not providing the required work either and you certainly don't want the
user to be on the loosing side because _you_ don't like systemd.

~~~
lmm
> you certainly don't want the user to be on the loosing[sic] side because you
> don't like systemd.

Debian has a long and glorious tradition of standing on principle to the
user's (at least short-term) detriment. Look at the way they used to ship KDE
programs (especially in the days before GPLed Qt), or the way they still
package tomcat, or their approach to multimedia codecs.

------
kolanos
I think this is only the beginning. The Linux community is in the midst of an
identity crisis. Linux has a well established history of fragmentation.
Fragmentation represents choice, flexibility, modularity and so forth. It also
represents control for the individual user. For a long time, this was
considered Linux's biggest strength. It was the anti-Windows. However, in the
past few years a unification movement has grown, largely inspired by OSX. I
think GNOME has pushed the hardest in this direction, systemd is just the
latest battle. The success of Ubuntu has also added fuel to the unification
fire as it continues to break away from the old guard and build their own
unified experience (Unity). While I think unification has its merits, it will
continue to meet significant resistance as long as there is still a large
contingent of fragmentists (just made that term up). I think it will come to a
head in the near future and the Linux community will break into two sides; the
unification side and the fragmentation side. The irony is that the unification
side stands as much a chance of fragmentation, since it appears Ubuntu will
continue to move away from GNOME. But so is the nature of OSS.

------
anonbanker
That means today is the last time I install a debian-derivative on a machine.

I mean, I had switched to gentoo for other reasons, but when the founder steps
down over systemd, this means we're seeing a quiet war being waged. And it
isn't by the guy who put the Ian in Debian.

~~~
teddyh
Ian Jackson had nothing to do with the founding of Debian, Ian _Murdock_
created (and named) Debian.

------
pmoriarty
systemd is a cancer. I am glad some are taking a firm stand against forcing it
down the throats of the Linux community.

~~~
walterbell
At least the vote is on the record. Time will tell whether this is another
Elop moment.

------
ausjke
I'm very concerned, systemd becomes system-Destruction, people are leaving for
BSDs likely because of it too.

It's very sad to watch this, systemd is too intrusive with the strong support
from the OSS Microsoft, that is, the Redhat behind the scene. No other project
can be so controversial so fast, it's really bad.

~~~
e7620
I followed a link to webarchive and, coincidentally, ended up on the slashdot
homepage from about 2000 I think, RedHat was becoming a threat to Linux, just
like Microsoft, and it's interesting to me how well they predicted the future,
they noticed that GPL, open source... (as Microsoft's github account shows)
wouldn't stop a company from maneuvering, entrenching its position and
dominating the marketplace.

