Re: Effectively criticizing decisions you disagree with in Debian
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 10:12:51PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2014, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> > Then please explain to us why, with all of the negative technical
> > aspects surrounding systemd, it looks to be the default init in
> > Jessie.
>
> You can start by reading why I voted for systemd:
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=727708#3661
When I read through most of these postings, I find two
types of responses: technical and political.
Technical responses deal with the minutae of the advantages
and disadvantages of adopting systemd.
Political responses are concerned with the behavior of the
systemd developers, and the advisability, by adopting
systemd, of giving this group power over every Debian
user's operating system.
Posts expressing concern about losing political control of
Debian to paid-for software developers, Russ Alberry derides
as subscribing to the "Red Hat conspiracy theory" which he
labels as "toxic."
To me that expresses the root of the controversy.
The technical committee gets its name for a role
in resolving technical issues. However a decision to adopt
systemd (or not) has a political dimension as well.
As the Debian community, are we to repose our trust in any
group who offers modest technical accomplishments?
Especially when the developers have shown attitudes and
behaviors incompatible with the core values of our
community? Especially where the beneficiaries are
developers of desktop environments and represent only a tiny
fraction of the user base? Especially when the technical
approach goes against the principles of decades of
development.
In unhealthy personal relationships there are signs that things
are going badly. Here we have plenty of evidence from
the systemd developers' behavior to raise questions.
Many of us see it as a bare-faced power grab. That is
a political conclusion and political language.
I think it's incorrect to pigeonhole and reject such
considerations as toxic.
We have a specific term for software that is invited
for one purpose and accomplishes another: a Trojan Horse.
It may be appropriate to apply this term to systemd: a
large, opaque system that must be swallowed whole, under the
control of an unaccountable group with questionable motives.
In a healthy community I would expect movers and shakers to
at least acknowledge the legitimate concerns of the user
base.
Respectfully,
Joel Roth
--
Reply to: