Re: lightweight wifi UI (Was: Insidious systemd)
bw wrote:
> In-Reply-To: <[🔎] 20190528110506.12328afe@debian9>
>
> Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com>
> ...
> >> It's a good topic, if you think this is a bug, please report it.
> >
> >I don't think it's a bug. Just a dependency issue caused by the way
> >systemd is designed.
>
> I hear what you are saying, and it all seems pretty accurate. The thing
> that you don't mention is that once you decide to deviate from debian
> defaults, you really can't expect anyone else to sympathize too much.
> You have freedom, you chose not to use systemd as init for various
> reasons. SysV is not compatible with some newer stuff. I don't have the
> list, but I have been aware of it for awhile.
The one true editor is ed, and all you filthy emacs
and vim users had better convert immediately.
(That was sarcasm. I like vim and I support a lot of emacs
users.)
Debian is not supposed to be a highly opinionated distribution, unless
the opinion is "there should be lots of options". Claiming that "once
you decide to deviate from debian defaults, you really can't expect
anyone else to sympathize too much" is just... incorrect. In
particular, I expect a reasonable degree of sympathy for anyone
who installs a Debian package from stable/main and doesn't get it
working because of a problem in another stable/main package.
> You will have to be able to navigate well on your own when you leave the
> mapped area.
That's true, but the mapped area is much bigger than you seem to
think it is.
> I don't see how we as users can tell developers what to do. I don't think
> debian has that many developers anyway, they are just packagers, which is
> a different skill. Half the dudes probably have no idea what this stuff
> is doing. To me the reason there are dependencies in the first place is
> debian maintainers don't want to figure things out, they just want to pack
> it up and get it out the door, complying with whatever policy debian has.
> That's fine with me, because I sure don't want that job.
I think you've just managed to insult every Debian user,
developer and volunteer, while simultaneously being wrong about
the nature of dependencies.
Dependencies are a key requirement of shared libraries, which
are in turn a key enabler of security and productivity. It would
not be going too far to say that well-maintained dependency
resolvers are the backbone of any modern Linux distribution.
Let's consider a very simple case: we have an SSL library, and
it has a bug in it.
Without dependencies, every package that uses the SSL library
needs to maintain and include its own copy. How many is that?
How many people need to coordinate? How many packages will just
skip the update because they missed it, or they're doing
something else, or they are still swamped with other things?
With dependencies, the SSL library maintainer builds, tests, and
sends off the new version; it gets rebuilt automatically; your
system picks it up on the next apt update run... and when you
upgrade, all the packages that use that SSL library get updated
at once.
-dsr-
-dsr-
Reply to: