Re: Choose your side on the Linux divide
On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 08:43:24 -0400
AW <debian.list.tracker@1024bits.com> wrote:
> It seems to me that the 'schism' is a figment of the imagination, as
> all major GNU/Linux distributions are actively porting, using, and
> integrating systemd. So, it's not so much a schism as a branch of
> non-conformists.
As a parallel, we could also say that most of western countries are
aligning on nsa/ghqc poliotic of noosing around in everybody's
backyard (or even in your own underwear); does it mean we have to
say amen and accept that without a word?
> While there's nothing wrong with being a
> non-conformist, in regards to most of the complaints regarding systemd
> -- the argument does not appear to be about technical superiority, nor
> performance, nor FOSS, nor substantial in any way except in vaguely
> philosophical terms. Any even this philosophical argument breaks down
> into an extraordinary hard line narrow view of what it means to run a
> *nix system.
I can't see what's wrong with the base argument, that is: KISS,
re-usable and understandable for everybody; which isn't the case
for systemd…
> So, if Mr's and Ms's no-systemd no-way no-how wish to run something
> else, so be it... I've got no problem with that... However, systemd
> is what all mainstream GNU/Linux distros will be running for the
> forseeable future
This is the 2nd time in 2§ that you use this argument, can't you do
better than that?
About that, this isn't a no-way, no-go; this is about a major shift
from something that isn't broken at all and modular to another thing
that is monolithic, tends to touch everything it can (and MANY MUCH
MORE than just starting a machine).
And much worse than that, it is about devs that don't care about breaking
things that used to work well for years (eg: the debug kernel switch),
don't care to fix their own mistakes and even close bugs when they
goes against their credo.
This is why I took the nsa example: there's no consultation, no care
about people, and who knows what will happen after this stuff will
be hegemonic??…
> - whether any one user likes it or not... Perhaps
> there are GNU/Linux users who have not enjoyed using sysvinit - and
> are welcoming the change... Isn't there the precise reverse argument
> that these users were 'forced' into using sysvinit and are now being
> 'freed' from its archaic, overly complex, and necessarily redundant
> bash scripting?
Treating sysV of "overly complex" against systemd is… quite intriguing
(to stay polite and avoid referring to brain and other things;)
As a reflexion gym, I send you back to the verses of Martin Niemöller…
Reply to: