Re: systemd
On Fri, Aug 3, 2012 at 3:28 AM, Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/1/12, Tom H <tomh0665@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Joel Rees <joel.rees@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 7/30/12, Tom H <tomh0665@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Ralf Mardorf
>>>> <ralf.mardorf@alice-dsl.net> wrote:
>>> I don't know what brings Tom H here, but I am becoming more active
>>> here precisely because of systemd. Well, that, and SELinux. Too many
>>> changes too fast, too many of them shifting from stable techniques
>>> known to work in *nix environments to experimental implementations of
>>> techniques that are known to be primary underlying factors of many of
>>> the technical issues in the monoculture/world-domination OS.
>>
>> I have absolutely no idea why I'm subscribed and post to d-u! ;)
>
> That seems odd to me.
It was a sarcastic response to your question about my purpose in
subscribing to this list.
>> If you have genuine technical reasons for being wary of systemd, fine!
>
> Uh, huh, and that's why I'm offering the heads-up.
And the *technical* heads-up was?
>> If you have an emotional negative reaction to Lennart Poettering, then
>> your "carefulness" is silly.
>
> I notice there is a certain class of politicking where the "Don't be
> emotional!" argument gets trotted out really quickly.
It's not "politicking!" All this noise about Lennart Poettering being
this or that is silly and immaterial. The only worthy questions are
"does systemd work as advertised" and "if yes, should Debian adopt
it".
The answer to the first is "yes,", even by Debian boot developers who
consider sysvinit no longer up to the task, at the very least of early
boot.
The answer to the second is "the jury's still out." AFAIR, Roger Leigh
phrased this in this thread in terms of determining whether adopting
systemd is in Debian's best interest.
> Poettering actually seems like he'd be a fun guy to hang around with.
> If you're on his side.
I couldn't care less.
>> The reiserfs developer's a convicted murderer, that didn't make
>> reiserfs technically inferior overnight. (Please note that I've
>> never used reiserfs, so I don't care either way.)
>
> And the primary vision which guided development of the file system is,
> well, no longer able to be applied to the project.
>
> But I've never accused Poettering of being any kind of criminal.
> Excessive pride in one's creations and inability to deal with
> criticism are personal failings, but they are not crimes. Not
> particularly rare, either. (Yeah, I have personal failings, too, and
> they do impact my projects.)
I never implied that you or anyone else has accused Lennart Poettering
of begin a criminal. I was simply making the point that reiserfs is
considered to be technically very good and yet we could bad things
about its main developer.
> Yeah, talking about people tends to draw attention away from technical
> issues, which is why I'm biting my tongue here.
What does "biting my tongue" mean? If you have an issue with someone,
especially someone who doesn't subscribe to this list, feel free to
email them directly and spare us the noise. Thanks.
> The technical issues start out with this problem:
>
> systemd is far too disruptive to have been stuffed into the main
> branch of Fedora the way it was. Good engineering would have been to
> have set up two concurrent forks of Fedora, to keep reference points
> available when working on the integration, and to provide a safety net
> when systemd's basic design errors surface.
Fedora and Ubuntu adopt packages early; so what? That doesn't mean
that those packages are bad.
Reply to: