Re: Tentative summary of the amendments
Olav Vitters wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 09:56:33AM -0400, Miles Fidelman wrote:
All this talk about what upstream developers will and won't do.
Seems to me that they've been writing sysvinit scripts for years;
systemd support ADDS work. It's only the GNOME developers who are
being rather vocal about not supporting sysvinit, to the extent of
IMHO blackmail.
Can you back this up?
So:
1. *Only* the GNOME developers
Well... so far, for all the major software I use (mysql, postgresql,
postfix, ...) and some that I've been considering (notably sheepdog),
the discussions used to be along the lines of 'oh sh*t, we need to write
systemd init scripts' as opposed to 'you need to run systemd to use
<e.g., GNOME>.
2. That's it is about sysvinit
of course it's about sysvinit - what other, mature init system is there?
3. That we tried to blackmail someone
if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck......
4. That it is about sysvinit scripts
Again, of course it is.
If you cannot, it seems you just performed libel. Suggest to be very
careful in the claims you make. Actually, I suggest you to cease and
desist.
"if you think my statement is libelous, go ahead and sue - I'd LOVE to
have the behavior of those behind systemd to be more visibile."
I've been communicating on debian-devel for a very long time. It seems
you missed everything and just make simple minded assumptions. It is ok
to be simple minded and utterly wrong. What is wrong is then to turn
that into calls of "blackmail".
You're so far off it's not funny.
You're just laughable.
Miles Fidelman
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
Reply to: