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

Re: Can you all please stop?

Hash: SHA256

On 1/11/2014 4:20 AM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I find this "giving in" language mystifying.  Have you bought into this
> idea that there's some sort of marketing campaign?  Because as near as I
> can tell that's a conspiracy theory for which I see little support.  As
> one of the people who debated this originally on the TC, I can tell you
> that I got precisely *zero* marketing, or even contact, from systemd
> developers except where I explicitly reached out and asked questions about
> things I was curious about.  I also have absolutely no affiliation with
> any of these shadowy corporations that people think are running some sort
> of long con on the free software community.

Well if systemd was JUST an init system then it wouldn't be as
significant, but it is much more than that today and endeavours to be
much more again.

I don't agree that systemd solves problems with sysvinit -- rather it
tries to solve all other problems that sysvinit had nothing to do with.
 There's nothing hard or complicated about a well defined startup
procedure via sysvinit, it's very standard and very easy to understand.

The /easy/ way is to go with the flow of Linux communities in general,
despite the fact that systemd is far over reaching already.  Ubuntu was
dead against systemd, but they have since relented due to the TC
decision ... they are going with the flow, hence the /easy/ way forward.

I don't see the need for upstart, systemd or any other /modern/ system
to replace sysvinit.  I do see the need to fix areas of Linux usability
OUTSIDE the init system, but not with systemd.


Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)


Reply to: