[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Effectively criticizing decisions you disagree with in Debian

On 09/21/2014 01:12 AM, 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

You can start by reading why I voted for systemd:

My summary of key points (about the discussion, not you personally):

1) The bug report leading to the decision is about "dependencies / conflicts." (The fix is to add even more dependencies and conflicts.)

2) Why the rush? Pressure from upstream. (Decision by hostage taking. "One init, or the Gnome gets it.")

3) We can't agree (so give them what they want).

4) We all like user choice (too bad we can't have it).

5) A technical committee decides an issue with vast non-technical implications. (What could possibly go wrong?)

6) There is no plan to address vendor lock-in and dependencies which caused the "bug." Even a warning proposal fails.

Looking in from the outside, the whole process seems incredibly myopic. The likely effect (already beginning) will be significant upgrade churn and backwards incompatibility, without commensurate benefits. The reward for those efforts will be additional gratuitous dependencies, fewer options, less control and less freedom.

The kernel has Linus to defend it. We have this sham, along with the unwanted Red Hat bundleware with more to follow. The empty promise of user choice was a smokescreen. Debian speak with forked tongue.

What I don't understand is that criticism and other forms of speaking
up cannot be considered as a form of contribution.

Constructive criticism is often a useful contribution. Destructive
criticism, much less so.

Disagree all you want, but don't malign others when you do so. (Or at
least, don't do it on Debian communication infrastructure.)

The time to consider the effect on volunteers was when you were making the decision. The time to consider the effect on future devs, who might be interested in fixing this, is now. It's unclear that Debian even admits the problem exists, much less that it is willing to address it.

Reply to: