On Mon, 12 May 2014 12:00:48 +0200
A debian dev wrote:
> Nobody cares.
>
> Please go away.
You apparently don't care that an official debian document is making
sweeping incorrect statements even though I have told you I have
professional experience in this area and pointed debian to a buildroot
link multiple times that at the very least shows your page to be
inaccurate. Devices are getting smaller and smaller and mhz aren't
equivelent at all for any idiots out there, systemd is not even close
to a Universal init.
Perhaps it is still under consideration but you also don't seem to have
given nearly enough consideration to su breakage and ploughed ahead
with su eradication despite rc.local likely being used under
systemd. Users not having read this thread will quite rightly from
learning from much more authoritative sources than debian continue to
use su in /etc/rc.local. Is there any danger to security of those users
from doing that; unanswered and unconsidered? This is important as I
guarantee users will continue to do so and likely forever and no
amount of website writing will change that.
The tech-ctte decision was 50/50 and the final statements largely
ignored the crux of the issues, an obviously significant part??? of
systemds 50% was based on licensing and not technical arguments that
you keep insisting on whilst ignoring pro systemd non technical and
incorrect statements. I have no preference for Upstart beyond over
systemd but if Ubuntu did decide to inhouse it then how is that an
issue. You still have a license to continue to use that code and develop
it. It is quite rediculous when the technical consequences are far
reaching and even affect Linux beyond debian that this should be a
major factor especially when /sbin/init has been undeveloped for so
long or do you want pid1 to be re-developed for ever. It has also been
said that a fork may be required anyway due to the belligerent nature
of upstream. Good intentions to develop for the good of the task itself
for shared benefit is the main thing that counts outside of legal
nonsense like patents.
Perhaps there should have been tech-ctte decisions on the various
points.
Having just looked it up I am surprised Matthias Urlichs actually is a
debian dev and suggest he qualifies his statements much more before
making them?
The Tech-Ctte output was rather poor largely due to the obfuscation
systemd places on the crux of what it deals with and that is primarily
why I tried to correct debian developers statements.
Perhaps debian simply inherited the changes to su but no-one spoke
against it in 1999 or 2000. I am sure Theo among others would have
spotted that fundamental default behaviour change and the potential
future danger and not allowed it to happen and this makes me appreciate
OpenBSD even more. (I know PAM would thankfully have no chance of
getting into OpenBSD but that is not the point)
A major part of why I am leaving and investigating my options is because
I see major management problems and do not believe debian is anywhere
near as stable or universal as it purports to be, though much more than
Fedora.
_______________________________________________________________________
"There are two ways of constructing a software design. One is to make
it so simple that there are OBVIOUSLY no deficiencies. And the other is
to make it so complicated that there are no OBVIOUS deficiencies"
Professor C. A. R. Hoare
The 1980 Turing award lecture
_______________________________________________________________________
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/372796.30485...@smtp141.mail.ir2.yahoo.com
