On 2/5/21 11:32 AM, me@tdiehl.org wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 4 Feb 2021, Warren Young wrote:
...
- The package names are often different, and not always differing by an
obvious translation rule. ...
Yep!! It is a pita when trying to get things running for the first time. I started this journey on a couple samba DC's before the Red Hat announcement. Libraries are almost always different names but even common packages like dhcp and bind have different names, configuration files and commands to do the same thing. Most of it is not that hard to figure out but it does take time to do it and it is a lot more work than going from CentOS 7 to CentOS 8. ...
Maybe I'm just weird, but I don't find naming differences to be big differences. Like I keep telling optical astronomers, radio astronomy is just observing at another wavelength; I get a lot of mean looks when I say that, too. It's all light, why are humans so special that our three sensory passbands centered around 450nm, 540nm, and 575nm should be so important? Why is the 400nm-700nm band more important than say 1000nm to 1700nm other than human eyes' sensitivities? Package naming is syntactic sugar, no more and no less, IMHO.
Their systemd implementation is my biggest problem with Debian based systems. ... It would be nice if they would make up their minds. Either bite the bullet and convert everything to systemd or stay with sysv :-(
One of the contrasts between Debian and many others is the complete governance transparency. In December 2019 they (where 'they' is the collective group of Debian Developers only, not users) voted on this issue; the process and results are documented here: https://www.debian.org/vote/2019/vote_002%C2%A0 In a nutshell, Debian moved closer to focusing entirely on systemd; people interested in alternatives have to provide the tooling and work themselves. Looking in unstable should show the current state of the systemd integration; stable is too old to reflect this vote. So I would expect Bullseye (Debian 11) to have a more integrated systemd.