On 2017-07-02 at 08:42, Curt wrote: > On 2017-07-02, Alessandro Vesely <ves...@tana.it> wrote: > >> I'd be curious on why tools which don't even require that systemd >> be PID1 go under the systemd umbrella. Doesn't that contribute to >> make systemd appear like some kind of conspiracy? > > A piece of software cannot be a conspiracy. A conspiracy requires > *people*. People conspire; i.e. they collaborate secretly for the > purposes of some harmful act.
Ah, but that brings up another point: systemd isn't just software. In addition to the two definitions which Christian Seiler provided, which are software, the name 'systemd' also refers to a third thing: the systemd *project*, i.e., the collection of people who work on systemd-the-software (both the could-be-PID-1 binary, and the suite of other programs which surround it). That project *is* made up of people, and those people could potentially be (in) a conspiracy. The question of whether they *are* is entirely separate, and although I don't want to get into that discussion, I don't think I'd be likely to come down on the side of "yes". My point is simply to point out the existence of that third definition, since it had been omitted from Christian's otherwise fairly excellent summation. -- The Wanderer The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
