Re: Choose your side on the Linux divide
On 8/28/14, Bzzzz <lazyvirus@gmx.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 08:43:24 -0400
> AW <debian.list.tracker@1024bits.com> wrote:
...
>> 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…
I can't see what's wrong with your argument. It's simple. It doesn't
use big technical terms, and ought be understandable by everybody,
but, well, I still can't understand it.
I think I must be just slow.
I'm really sorry.
>> 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?
Thank you for that: your response is much more insightful. I'm almost
grasping it .. I think.
> systemd ... tends to touch everything it can
Really? I think we might have to report it...
> (and MANY MUCH MORE than just touching a machine)
Wow.
> 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),
Hmm. You might have another point here. Those Debian devs ... if they
can't be trusted to not package systemd for Debian, I'm not sure we
can trust them on other things. I think we should probably fork
Debian.
> don't care to fix their own mistakes
Really? I'd like to read up on that, if you have a reverence.
> and even close bugs when they goes against their credo.
Yeah, that's pretty bad. I think we should update the Debian bug
tracking system so that bugs can't be closed any more.
> 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??…
My dictionary brings up demonic, and hegemony, but not hegemonic. Is
that, like an image or monica of the floral periphery or something?
>> - 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;)
Oh, thanks. My brain is definitely overloaded at this point. I'm glad
we're simplifying the debate.
> As a reflexion gym, I send you back to the verses of Martin Niemöller…
Never heard of him. Is he your uncle?
Reply to: