Re: A few observations about systemd
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 21:09:36 +0200, Uoti Urpala
<uoti.urpala@pp1.inet.fi> wrote:
>Guillem Jover wrote:
>> While upstreams are obviously entitled to not care at *all* about
>> portability for their pet projects (at the risk of being either ignored
>> or forked, I guess), trying to push so hard for the adoption of those
>> projects as either foundation blocks or hard dependencies on other
>> upstream projects seems quite arrogant and irrespectful to all the
>> people interested in portability or to members and users of other
>> operating systems or other implementations of the functionality such
>> new projects are trying to displace.
>
>I think it's quite arrogant of BSD users to expect others to work to
>support their systems. The BSD userbase is small enough that most
>projects have alternative things to work on that help a lot more people
>than BSD support would. Trying to support extra platforms the
>maintainers themselves never use does have a real negative effect on the
>rest of a project.
>
>It's definitely arrogant for users of other operating systems to try to
>obstruct people from using better technology on Linux. It's not like
>there would be anything equaling the quality of systemd that would run
>on BSD. It's not your place to say that people shouldn't get to use it
>on Linux, or that Linux users should have to work on BSD support to be
>allowed to use it now.
There is a different between "I don't care about portability" and "I
won't accept any patches that are only useful on non-Linux platforms".
The former could be remedied by submitting documented and maintained
patches, which saves the world from early forks that ae bound to
diverge. The latter attitude is a showstopper.
Greetings
Marc
--
-------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -----
Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
Reply to: