[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Really, ...

* John Paul Adrian Glaubitz <glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de> [121129 18:12]:
> This is actually a true valid point which I personally would accept as
> an argument against systemd. Without looking into the details, this
> seems to be something that can be fixed by a new upload, doesn't it?

Almost any actual specific problem can be fixed with a new upload.
Any reason given to believe that there will be problems left or that
remaining problems will have a bigger impact are not probable with
actual problems (because any actual problem usually can be fixed,
or claimed to be a non-problem).
I think noone claims that systemd would not be the superior design
in a world where there is bug-free, perfect software prepared to handle
every possible situation it will be thrown into. As our world has not
yet seen bug-free software handling every single situation the authors
did not think about properly, the expectation of what happens if one
runs into a not-yet fixed bug is an important issue for many people.

Free software has always been a way to avoid being helplessly at the
mercy of some software. So handing over the basics of your computer
to a much more complex system can be quite frightening for many
people around here. Claiming that it will work for everyone and that
anyone not being able to name a problem existing now has no arguments
does not help. It only makes sure people are reassured that systemd is
not for them. Combine that with vocal demands that it should be the
only allowed init process in a short time frame makes sure that there
is a big opposition (which will look for you like it has no arguments,
as no real arguments against systemd are accepted.)

        Bernhard R. Link

Reply to: