Re: piece of mind (Re: Moderated posts?)
Matthias Urlichs <matthias@urlichs.de> writes:
> But please don't just do this in the context of yet another attempt to
> express dissatisfaction with the fact that our TC chose systemd:
> if you do, I do not think you'll achieve anything except more annoyance
> about the fact that we're discussing this *again*, and further regression
> to a discussion climate where each&every mention of systemd automatically
> raises hackles on both "sides".
>
> Which will do any number of things, but not improve Debian.
> And that's, ostensibly, what we're all here for.
Hold on a second, there's something wrong with that. I'm not entirely
sure what it is yet, though.
> In any case, users _do_ have a say. They can force their systems to remain
> on sys5 init, or switch to a different distro if that should also turn out
> to be unsatisfactory. Likewise, upstream developers can refuse to include
> unit files or systemd-supporting tidbits (like socket activation) in their
> source code.
Clutching at straws? Can you keep your system working as is and at the
same time fully free of systemd? If you can, for long will that be?
A developer basically doesn't have much reason to refuse to put things
into their project so that it'll work with multiple init systems. I'd
see it as an advantage to give users choices. Systemd doesn't seem to
be designed to give users choices, though.
> Fact is that the vast majority of them don't. There has been no huge outcry
> among Fedora users about switching to systemd, for example. So, frankly,
> there doesn't seem to be a need to maufacture one here.
Such outcries were forcibly silenced by the makers of Fedora. And it
seems that it took a while and/or still takes a while before the users
actually realise the scope of the issue, if they ever will. I would
never have imagined.
--
Again we must be afraid of speaking of daemons for fear that daemons
might swallow us. Finally, this fear has become reasonable.
Reply to: