"We don't execute people just because they are old, and worship people just because they are new" "We shouldn't do so with technology"

Why can we not be afforded the choice to stay with sysvinit that we know and have no problem with? Sysvinit is a known quantity. It doesn't crash, it doesn't do too many things, it starts up the system and that is that. Very few people need the process tracking that is the main feature of these new init systems. It is an "enterprise" feature, and most of us do not need it at all. So why must we not in the enterprise be dragged along?

Debian once upon a time was the more unix like, less redhat like distro. It was for those who knew what they were doing or who wanted to learn. Will a new debian be needed once that which we knew is gone? Is it possible to take on such a project now that our choice is to be taken from us and those things which we have learnt over the past decades be paved over with some new flavor of the month or year? Is churn and change of process really a good thing? Should we build our machines on shifting sands.

(Proposed introductory statement) This statement do not denounce claims that newer init systems provide useful features that for many users makes them more suitable than ?SysVinit, but we still believe that ?SysVinit is the best init system for Debian users. We also believe that even if ?SysVinit is not the best init system for Debian users, at this moment it would be wrong to migrate to Upstart or systemd, since we believe that (in that case) the most natural successor, for ?SysVinit would ceratinly be OpenRC (for details see OpenRC statement), and though OpenRC is not yet in Sid, it could soon become available.


Contra change to another initsystem

Unless the new initsystem retains backward compatiblity, and packages continue to provide sysvinit-style initscripts:

Contra systemd, upstart

Contra systemd

Contra upstart

Contra OpenRC

Contra sysvinit