Re: Really, ...
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Uoti Urpala <uoti.urpala@pp1.inet.fi> writes:
>
> > Would you expect anyone who thinks such activity is not useful to help
> > with it? This would seem to lead to the absurd conclusion that
> > expressing a negative view/evaluation of anything would always be just
> > noise, regardless of technical arguments or anything else.
>
> If they haven't heard the evaluation, then it may be useful information
> for them. Once you've already communicated the evaluation and established
> that they don't agree with you, then yes, this is exactly true.
I'm pretty sure I haven't said anything similar about methods of
comparing init systems before. Note that I did not say "it's not worth
comparing because it's obvious that systemd would win anyway" (that's
probably true, but it's something that _has_ been said before). I talked
about the limitations of such an approach without reference to any
particular systems being tested.
> It's just like a vim user going on about how horrible Emacs is. No one
> cares. The Emacs developers are going to keep developing on Emacs because
I criticized a proposed method to compare vim and Emacs. Not vim or
Emacs.
> > There's no need for Debian to make a formal decision that will be set in
> > stone no matter what. But what you said was that it would be premature
> > to pick winners and losers for init systems. I don't consider it
> > premature to pick systemd as a winner; there's a difference between
> > keeping your options open and claiming that they're all still equal.
>
> Yes, it's been obvious for months that you think there's enough data to
> make a decision right now. But we're still not going to, and that isn't
> going to change just because you've stated your opinion for the 51st time.
Just to make it clear, I'm not arguing that Debian should make a formal
decision right now. What I said was about technical evaluation, not
formal decision-making. And here claiming that it's premature to make a
technical evaluation is itself a claim about the situation, not a
neutral position (saying that you haven't yet reached an evaluation
yourself is a neutral position; saying that making an evaluation is
premature is not).
> > Since you wrote this in a reply to me, I assume you meant that "people
> > advocating it" to apply to me at least to some degree. The primary
> > reason I wrote my original reply is that you made a misleading
> > comparison between qmail (lack of working community) and systemd
> > (working community, outsiders who complain).
>
> You misread my message. I didn't compare qmail directly to systemd. I
> was using qmail among others to make a general argument against the
> position that social factors do not matter when choosing software.
I think the message you replied to had little to do with a "position
that social factors do not matter when choosing software", especially
social factors relevant to maintaining a development community as your
reply talked about. It was about the relevance of there being outsiders
who complain. So maybe I read your message differently than how you
intended it - but I think that was pretty natural if your intent was
replying to something that hadn't actually been said.
Reply to: