[sf-lug] Byfield's "Verdict" on systemd

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Alex Kleider (akleider at sonic.net):

> Am I correct then that you would not currently recommend Debian,
> presumably because of systemd?

As a further elaboration on that, if I started out with an Official
Debian ISO to build a system for myself, by the time I finished
customising its configuration and maintenance, it would be no longer
quite an orthodox Debian Project-type system, and would be a bit closer
to the end-result of running one of the Devuan Project ISO installers.

_But also_, what's really pernicious is this implicit assumption in most
people's discussion that a system end-state when a distro installer
finishes is (1) important and (2) a right and proper model for the
host's path forward.  And I should add:  (3) that it's somehow improper
to intervene during installation to say 'No, I think not' to various of
the installer's default settings (including but not limited to electing
to install fewer and/or different packages than the default selection)..

First of all, there's nothing sacrosanct or important about the running
system's configuration and composition when the distro installer ends.  
Logically, this ought IMO to be the time when you dig in and make the
distro behave they way _you_ like, because, well, this is open source
and the whole point of open source is to return control to you.

But I keep seeing newcomers who never dare customise anything, and
moreover, didn't even dare to depart from any installer defaults:  They
tend to do what we derisively call 'forehead installs', where the only
user action during installation is to hit the spacebar with their
foreheads every time there's a prompt.

And I know how and why this happens:  Most of these people never really
learn much about their distributions, and so the notion of taking charge
and making the machine follow _their_ policies doesn't even occur to
them.

The installer isn't really particularly important.  After about 2003,
with the ubiquity of good hardware autoprobing code in distro
installers, distro installers have been generally so similar that the
difference hardly matter.  Some are fully graphical vs. others being
ncurses, some are optional bulk-copying scripts electable from a booted
live distro image -- other than that, the differences are small and
hardly matter.  The default software selection doesn't matter much,
either:  You can generally elect less and/or different packages during
installation if you bother to think of doing so.  If you don't, you can
use package-management tooks to make the same adjustments after
installation.

Yet, what do almost all distro reviews concentrate on?  On the installer
and on the default software selections one receives at the end of a
forehead install.

What matters a great deal more, IMO, is administration and maintenance
_after_ installation -- and you basically won't read about those in
reviews at all, and have to realise that they're vital albeit
unmentioned by the articles.