On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 08:43:24 -0400 AW <debian.list.trac...@1024bits.com> wrote:
> It seems to me that the 'schism' is a figment of the imagination, as > all major GNU/Linux distributions are actively porting, using, and > integrating systemd. So, it's not so much a schism as a branch of > non-conformists. As a parallel, we could also say that most of western countries are aligning on nsa/ghqc poliotic of noosing around in everybody's backyard (or even in your own underwear); does it mean we have to say amen and accept that without a word? > While there's nothing wrong with being a > non-conformist, in regards to most of the complaints regarding systemd > -- the argument does not appear to be about technical superiority, nor > performance, nor FOSS, nor substantial in any way except in vaguely > philosophical terms. Any even this philosophical argument breaks down > into an extraordinary hard line narrow view of what it means to run a > *nix system. I can't see what's wrong with the base argument, that is: KISS, re-usable and understandable for everybody; which isn't the case for systemd… > So, if Mr's and Ms's no-systemd no-way no-how wish to run something > else, so be it... I've got no problem with that... However, systemd > is what all mainstream GNU/Linux distros will be running for the > forseeable future This is the 2nd time in 2§ that you use this argument, can't you do better than that? About that, this isn't a no-way, no-go; this is about a major shift from something that isn't broken at all and modular to another thing that is monolithic, tends to touch everything it can (and MANY MUCH MORE than just starting a machine). And much worse than that, it is about devs that don't care about breaking things that used to work well for years (eg: the debug kernel switch), don't care to fix their own mistakes and even close bugs when they goes against their credo. This is why I took the nsa example: there's no consultation, no care about people, and who knows what will happen after this stuff will be hegemonic??… > - whether any one user likes it or not... Perhaps > there are GNU/Linux users who have not enjoyed using sysvinit - and > are welcoming the change... Isn't there the precise reverse argument > that these users were 'forced' into using sysvinit and are now being > 'freed' from its archaic, overly complex, and necessarily redundant > bash scripting? Treating sysV of "overly complex" against systemd is… quite intriguing (to stay polite and avoid referring to brain and other things;) As a reflexion gym, I send you back to the verses of Martin Niemöller… -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140828151510.4064e41e@msi.defcon1
