There is no choice
Cindy-Sue Causey <butterflybytes@gmail.com> writes:
> What the person did was provide a digestible alternative for potential
> peers to review. People can tear it apart verbally and/or build upon
> it if they see value in what was presented..
>
> That's what I imagine happening here, but I'm still "newbie" naive on
> this particular process. By that I mean including both exactly what
> systemd does and what it takes to push a viable alternative upstream,
> not to mention getting an alternative accepted to boot.
This isn't what's happening. What's happening is that when you propose
alternatives, possible fixes or additions to software maintained by
others, either nobody cares or your proposal, fix or addition is denied.
Make a bug report or feature request without proposing anything, and you
have _very_ slim chances that some kind of feature might be added or a
bug might be fixed eventually.
The actual process is that there are a few people who do whatever they
want while claiming it's good for the users, without any regard for the
users they claim to do good for. These few people are also very
concerned with preventing other people, particularly users, from doing
something which would contribute to what they claim that they are doing.
It boils down to that Debian is doing very much the opposite of what
they say that they are trying to achieve. The same goes for the Fedora
project.
Perhaps, given some time, the current concept of a Linux distribution
obsoletes itself because users will find it necessary to make their own
choices. At that point, some sort of framework helping users who made
their choices to get the software working they decided to use might be
useful --- which, ironically, kinda is what Linux distributions used to
be.
--
Knowledge is volatile and fluid. Software is power.
Reply to: