Re: engineering management practices and systemd (Re: Installing an Alternative Init?)
One thing at a time.
On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 1:23 AM, Ludovic Meyer <ludo.v.meyer@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
> Your definition of mainstream is strange.
What's strange about it? Do I need to provide a link to the dictionary
for you for that? I assume not.
Given a community, there is a mainstream within that community.
We have a community of users of Linux-kernel OSses that provide,
without excessive effort, command-line shells, full C compiler suites,
administrator access to the device owner, etc.
(Sure, Android has No-root Debian and Terminal-IDE, but those are
third-party apps and don't give true administrator access. The sdk is
not something mainstream Android users can figure out without a lot of
effort, and takes a separate machine. Thus, Android is outside the
domain of discussion, and I shouldn't have had to explain why. Unless
you think that Linux OSses should start limiting the device owner from
doing things like adding users and changing the unit infrastructure,
in which case, the reason we can't communicate is clear.)
Now, you note that Fedora claims in the range of a million users. Even
if their estimates are an order of magnitude high, that's hundreds of
thousands.
How can that not be mainstream?
Or are you under the misapprehension that there is only one
mainstream? Fedora and Debian are the mainstreams of what most of us
consider the Linux community. (Ubuntu being part of the greater Debian
community and Cent being part of the greater Fedora community.)
Now, before you throw up any more quibbles, what I am talking about
when I say mainstream users is those users who have not specifically
chosen to be part of an experiment who are being dragged into an
experiment.
Except you'll now point out that Fedora is the "cutting edge" of Red
Hat's stuff, which is ignoring the issue. And Fedora has rawhide, and
Debian has sid, which is ignoring the issue.
sid is locked into the future of stable, just like Rawhide is locked
into the future of Fedora. The release schedule does not allow for
major changes to be unrolled easily. Anything that gets accepted into
sid and passes into testing gets into stable, unless a lot of people
get excited during the testing phase.
Now, is systemd a major change or isn't it?
If you ask Poettering when he wants to sell systemd, it's a MAJOR
improvement. If you ask systemd proponents when they are sandbagging,
NO! NO! It's NOT a major change. (Sorry about the shouting, I'm just
describing how it looks to me. It does look like you guys are being
emphatic.)
If it's a major change, it needs more time, and, I'm asserting, the
special handling of a temporary parallel fork.
If it's not a major change, why do we have problems like the problem
of installing other inits?
> [...]
--
Joel Rees
Be careful when you look at conspiracy.
Look first in your own heart,
and ask yourself if you are not your own worst enemy.
Arm yourself with knowledge of yourself, as well.
Reply to: