Re: Choose your side on the Linux divide
On Wed 27 Aug 2014 at 08:18:04 +0900, Joel Rees wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 6:36 AM, David Guntner <david@guntner.com> wrote:
> >
> > Yea, but you see (well, I suppose that the people like you who continue to
> > think this list is for anything you feel like posting about *don't* see it),
> > *this* list is for DEBIAN-specific Linux discussions. It's not a
> > general-purpose Linux advocacy list. That's why we have a DEBIAN Off-Topic
> > list - it's for Debian users to talk about things that aren't specific to
> > DEBIAN, such as general Linux advocacy and so on.
>
> I suppose Steve is still hoping that we can get enough user-level
> support for shoving back against the freedesktop.org/gnome/systemd
> crowd within debian. Just because the technical committee made one
> stupid decision doesn't mean they can't have second thoughts.
You should let the man speak for himself. All he posted was link.
It is impossible for the technical committee to have "second thoughts"
off their own bat.
> So it is debian-user on topic, so there.
No. if it (the original post) is on-topic on ubuntu-user it is off-topic
on on both lists.
> > While systemd is 100% a Linux thing, it's hardly a Debian-specific thing.
> > It's way better suited to the OT list. Which, you know, is why it was
> > created.
>
> No, the off-topic list was for talking about off-topic stuff that is
> incidental to debian discussions.
Really? What are "debian discussions"? The original post seemed devoid
of any such target; it was simply a link.
> The only way the appropriateness of systemd in debian is off-topic is
> if systemd has already become the replacement kernel in Linux. (We
> know they are trying hard at that, but it hasn't happened yet.)
High-class FUD.
> > [...]
>
> Let me repeat myself, if you don't get it yet.
>
> This is not the Fedora list. The only way a planned integral part of
> the post-jessie debian systems can become off-topic is if discussing
> removing it becomes equivalent to discussing removing the kernel. (And
> even there, we have precedent.)
By God, you play for high stakes.
Reply to: