Cindy-Sue Causey <butterflyby...@gmail.com> writes: > What the person did was provide a digestible alternative for potential > peers to review. People can tear it apart verbally and/or build upon > it if they see value in what was presented.. > > That's what I imagine happening here, but I'm still "newbie" naive on > this particular process. By that I mean including both exactly what > systemd does and what it takes to push a viable alternative upstream, > not to mention getting an alternative accepted to boot.
This isn't what's happening. What's happening is that when you propose alternatives, possible fixes or additions to software maintained by others, either nobody cares or your proposal, fix or addition is denied. Make a bug report or feature request without proposing anything, and you have _very_ slim chances that some kind of feature might be added or a bug might be fixed eventually. The actual process is that there are a few people who do whatever they want while claiming it's good for the users, without any regard for the users they claim to do good for. These few people are also very concerned with preventing other people, particularly users, from doing something which would contribute to what they claim that they are doing. It boils down to that Debian is doing very much the opposite of what they say that they are trying to achieve. The same goes for the Fedora project. Perhaps, given some time, the current concept of a Linux distribution obsoletes itself because users will find it necessary to make their own choices. At that point, some sort of framework helping users who made their choices to get the software working they decided to use might be useful --- which, ironically, kinda is what Linux distributions used to be. -- Knowledge is volatile and fluid. Software is power. -- 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/87a95ukwes.fsf...@yun.yagibdah.de
