Re: Clarifying what 'systemd' actually means
On 2017-07-02, Alessandro Vesely <vesely@tana.it> wrote:
>
> I'd be curious on why tools which don't even require that systemd be PID1 go
> under the systemd umbrella. Doesn't that contribute to make systemd appear
> like some kind of conspiracy?
A piece of software cannot be a conspiracy. A conspiracy requires
*people*. People conspire; i.e. they collaborate secretly for the
purposes of some harmful act.
An illustrative example of the conspiracy principle might be discovered
in this very thread. You and the other poster (whose off-the-wall
inquiry felt rather like a troll) could conspire, let us just say in the purest
hypothetical tradition, to transform a discussion concerning a simple
security advisory into yet another systemd flame war.
> BTW, is resolved one of them or does it require systemd?
>
> Ale
>
>
--
“Yeah yeah.” --Sidney Morgenbesser's retort to a speaker who said that although
there are many cases in which two negatives make a positive, he knew of no case
in which two positives made a negative.
Reply to: