bably some lessons why, and that is what
some of the people here are trying to get you to see.
-Kev
On 19 November 2012 04:23, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
wrote:
> Hello Kevin,
>
> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 09:51:22PM -0600, Kevin Toppins wrote:
>> Just because something is very old, d
> Me too, please read:
> http://catb.org/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Oh crap, my apologies.
I honestly forgot that the reply was still at the bottom of my email.
I did not intentionally leave it there.
It certainly wasn't some passive-aggressive kind of post-reply, I do
apologize for it being t
> Sadly it is obvious from the rest of this message that you are not up
> to speed on the topic here. If you want to usefully contribute to the
> topic, at a very least you should familiarise yourself with the prior
> threads about systemd to debian-devel. At a very, bare-minimum least.
> It would
Thu, 22 Nov 2012 12:56:09 +0800 from Chow Loong Jin
> > -> What role is systemd designed to facilitate?
>
> An init daemon. But why don't you ask yourself -- what role(s) should an init
> daemon play anyway?
Thank you.
Everyone raising a fuss and not many seeing the focus I am trying to
dir
To all debian developers:
-> systemd is *fundamentally incompatible* with linux
Now, I realize that's a bold claim, but if you are up for some reading, I
will prove it.
First -> a little history just to put this into a context that's easier to
follow
Over a year ago (Nov 2012), I tried to *
On 25 March 2014 08:54, Federico Di Gregorio wrote:
[...]
> Lots of asterisks won't make a point.
The asterisks are there to specifically focus your attention on those words.
Because -> I find that if I don't use them -> people tend to misread
what I write (or more so at least)
-Kev
--
To UN
On 25 March 2014 11:25, William Unruh wrote:
[...]
> And if they are there, together with all the boldfacing, people tend to
> think that you are a complete kook. So you makes your choices...
Okay, my apologies.
I am not very experienced with lists and the expectations that run within them.
Her
On Tuesday, March 25, 2014 11:40:02 AM UTC-5, Jonathan Dowland wrote:
> I was very proud of my fellow colleagues for not feeding the troll a
> full 24 hours later. Thanks for breaking the record :(
Jonathan we've been through this before.
-> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2012/11/msg
On 26 March 2014 05:40, Thomas Goirand wrote:
[...]
> If you want thing to move on, stop posting useless messages, and start
> working on alternatives. For example, helping adding more features to
> OpenRC would certainly help a way more than this post.
I am going to have to respectfully disagre
On 26 March 2014 10:13, Cameron Norman wrote:
[...]
> That is pretty much impossible, according to the developers of the logind
> API and its single implementation. Perhaps a subset of the logind API for
> use by desktop environments / compositors would be more useful in this init
> and OS portabi
On 26 March 2014 13:42, Shachar Shemesh wrote:
[...]
> As far as the systemd vs. upstart discussion, I was leaning in upstart (more
> precisely, against systemd). As such, your email was very interesting to me.
> Unfortunately, it was unreadable. You said you'll start with background, but
> instea
On 26 Mar 2014 12:30, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
[...]
> > But here is the vastly oversimplified technical argument...
> >
> To the point of being neither technical nor valid.
> (Which admittedly was never in doubt even before I started reading.)
What do you consider technical?
Vastly oversimplifie
On 28 Mar 2014 03:40, Olav Vitters wrote:
[...]
> > I can tell you right now, it is *vastly more difficult* to try to
> > adapt programs modified to work with systemd in their current state,
> > than it is to *revert* those programs to their pre-systemd state.
>
> You're so certain while so utterly
13 matches
Mail list logo
