Re: how to remove libsystemd0 from a live-running debian desktop system
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 12:27 AM, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 11:52:21PM +0000, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 10:52 PM, Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> wrote:
>
>> > So, please go educate yourself on what libsystemd0 actually does,
>
>> i know what it does, and what it does - technically - is *not* the
>> issue that i am concerned about.
>
> And that is why you'll find little interest here in entertaining your
> argument. You have *not* presented any evidence that Debian is technically
> worse off as a result of packages depending on libsystemd0.
that's right - i haven't. because (a) i have complete confidence in
your technical abilities, as a group. i wouldn't use debian
otherwise! :) and (b) this isn't a technical issue, it's a strategic
one.
so, the gist is: debian developers make decisions primarily based on
technical merit (almost exclusively), disregarding strategic issues
(almost exclusively). would that be a fairly broad but accurate
assessment? (thank you to everyone else who has chipped in, i read a
couple of other messages from people which point in a similar
direction)
a couple of things occur to me.
firstly, when i was last in holland i was working for NC3A, some kind
person referred me to an obscure book called "The Strategy-focussed
Organisation". very intelligent guy, who had actually read it... i
don't recommend reading all of it cover-to-cover, and neither did he
:)
he pointed out to me the one key question is that when it comes to
the strategy (direction, focus) of any organisation, the question "why
should we care what anyone else is doing?" is *the* most important one
you can possibly ask. why - when you, the debian developers, are
doing such a fantastic job (really and sincerely) - should you care
when someone from *outside* of your group jumps up and down and says
"uhh... guuuys?"
i invite you to think seriously about that, ok? (because i don't
have an answer!!)
the second thing - and i'm taking a huge risk here by using the
example that i'm about to share with you; please DO NOT think for ONE
SECOND that you are being ACCUSED of anything, ok? i'm using this
example because i believe it will get through to you with enough
clarity. i DO NOT want to hear ANYONE say "god almighty, did he
_really_ just accuse us of being horrible people by association", ok?
do you know what the world's most authoritative medical texts are on
the subject of pain? pain thresholds, tolerance, stress levels and so
on? it's the documentation that the nazis made during their reign.
horrifyingly, they were *genuinely curious*, but, unlike other groups
who have tortured other humans, they meticulously documented all of
their work.
why am i mentioning this example? because, *technically*, the nazis
documentation of their work is sufficiently flawless as to be of
extremely high *technical* value in the medical world, even today.
... but does that mean that *strategically* they should even have
been doing that research in the first place? does the *technical*
quality of their work justify their torturing and murdering of other
human beings, just to see what happened?? of *course* it f*****g well
doesn't!
so this extreme example should, i believe, serve as an extremely
graphic illustration that, in any group, technical decisions need to
be guided by some sort of.... moral and/or strategic compass. not
that i claim to be an authority on either [1].
would you agree with that? i mean the moral and strategic compass
bit, not my claim to not be an authority on moral compasses :)
l.
[1] please don't say i am claiming to tell you what to do, therefore
you have the right to ignore it. as a group you keep doing that, and i
keep having to tell you i'm not, and it's getting really, really old.
Reply to: