On Mon, Nov 3, 2014 at 2:46 AM, Peter Nieman <gmane-a...@t-online.de> wrote: > On 02/11/14 16:45, Marty wrote: >> >> http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/ProSystemdAntiSystemd/ >> >> It should be required reading for any participant in a systemd thread. > > > Required reading because of what? In order to learn what an arrogant and > insulting pamphlet looks like? I doubt that using the word "dumb" three > times in the first few sentences is an intelligent way of convincing anybody > of anything.
You exaggerate a little. Once in the first paragraph, disparaging the concept of forking debian. Forking debian is pretty thoroughly less than optimal, don't you think? Twice more in the fifth paragraph, disparaging the extremist arguments on both sides of the debate. Not so much the arguers, although he does take a few digs at personality further down. Required? By whom is a good question. Useful, no matter which side you take? I think so, although extremists on either side of the debate will likely find it irritating: -----------------quote----------------- This is not meant as an indictment on systemd proponents, but rather to show one thing: the systemd debate is rarely a technical argument for either side, instead it is an ideological and cultural war waged by two opposing demographics that inhabit the same general sphere of Linux and FOSS. ... ... A lot of systemd opponents will express their opinions regarding a supposed takeover of the Linux ecosystem by systemd, as its auxiliaries (all requiring governance by the systemd init) expose APIs, which are then used by various software in the desktop stack, creating dependency chains between it and systemd that the opponents deemed unwarranted. ... Opponents see this as anti-competitive behavior and liken it to “embrace, extend, extinguish”. They often exaggerate and go all out with their vitriol though, as they start to contemplate shadowy backroom conspiracies at Red Hat .... -----------------quote----------------- And it continues in the same vein, pointing out, much to the apparent distress of extremists, that bad arguments are being used on both sides of the debate. It is not unmitigated praise of systemd proponents. Neither is it any sort of defense of the anti-systemd crowd. It's rather blunt from the top, but the reasoning is good and it is balanced. So it's going to be hated by extremists on both sides ... except for some extremists like myself, who really don't like what has happened, but also really want the bad arguments cleared out of the way so we can get back to work. And it's better worded than anything I've been able to write. I'll agree, everyone who wants to continue discussing or debating systemd should read it. Not because it shows how wrong you guys all are (on both sides), but because systemd isn't going away any time soon and we need to put the dumb arguments _on_ _both_ _sides_ away and focus our time on finding ways to make debian's efforts to allow multiple inits going forward to work. And for those who want the systemd-less so clean that it doesn't even include stubs to satisfy linking dependencies, we are going to have to roll up our sleeves and re-re-factor some of the packages involved. It's going to take some work and some stubbornness, but that's what open source is all about. And we probably should be a little less prickly about it when we give our patches to the devs. -- Joel Rees Be careful when you look at conspiracy. Look first in your own heart, and ask yourself if you are not your own worst enemy. Arm yourself with knowledge of yourself, as well. -- 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/caar43im0vhaj0yqurxvujhgg0z0jeqdtda9nnjt_ggmynlu...@mail.gmail.com
