Hi, Miles Fidelman: > arrogance, a couple of developers with an agenda and salaries behind them,
I fail to see what's so evil about getting paid for developing free
software.
And: OF COURSE they have an agenda. Getting systemd deployed as widely as
possible means less work for everbody, including RedHat. Thus, RedHat
sponsors this work. They directly benefit from it.
No further intent required, much less another agenda behind this one,
and it's open source anyway.
So why assume such intent exists?
> Just the worst of human behavior coming to the fore.
Sorry, but I cannot take that sentence seriously.
I reserve "the worst of Human behavior" for what certain religious fanatics,
which I will not name here, do to the people in Syria/Iraq.
Just as an example, mind you.
> Nah, nobody in the systemd camp was ever listening,
That's a matter of perception. As an example, looking at the continuing
complaints about the "binary-only" logging that systemd's journal does, one
might as well come to conclude that the exchange went somewhat like this:
Critic: I don't like the journal because … [ text logs are greppable, more
crash-proof, The Unix Way -- i.e. some mix of technical and
emotional reasons ]
Systemd: We do X because [ multiple indices, daemon-specific logs;
and here's how you can still do text logging if you want it
[ ignoring the non-technical reasons ]
Critic: I still don't like it. [ more overhead, less crash-proof, … ]
Systemd: Sorry, we think that the advantages are more important than
your perceived problems which in practice don't matter
[ forgetting an 'IMHO' or two, and still not acknowledging D's
not-so-technical reasons ]
Critic: I don't think that helps. [ focusing on the emotional side,
because the technical arguments have been exchanged and need
no further embellishment ]
Systemd: [ shrugs ]
Critic: You're not listening to me!
Critic 2: I don't like the journal because … [ mostly the same reasons ]
Systemd: [ doesn't want to re-hash the old arguments because, well,
journald has been in production use for umpteen months,
and Just Works in their opinion, therefore doesn't react ]
Critic 2: YOU'RE NOT LISTENING TO ME!
Note that the failure to adequately communicate which this example
demonstrates is NOT one-sided.
Not the only example.
This process, when repeated, causes rifts that seem un-bridge-able.
--
-- Matthias Urlichs
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
