On Sat 19 Jul 2014 at 13:11:47 -0400, Steve Litt wrote: > LOL, how do you do it Andrei? You've tried and failed to rebut me three > times... > > On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 14:28:55 +0300 > Andrei POPESCU <andreimpope...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > It seems to me like you're trolling, but I'll assume good faith and > > reply anyway. > > > > On Vi, 18 iul 14, 18:22:49, Steve Litt wrote: > > > On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 18:29:23 +0200 > > > Sven Joachim <svenj...@gmx.de> wrote: > > > > > > > > They should read the mail[1] by one of its maintainers which > > > > states that it was (and is) _not_ "working just fine", and that a > > > > replacement has long been overdue. > > > > > > I've used Linux every day since March 2001, and I never had a > > > problem with the way it booted or initialized, other than Grub2. > > > Until this systemd thing came up, I never heard an *actual Linux > > > user* gripe about its init, although of course the pro-Microsoft > > > and pro-Apple folks griped about it all the time. > > > > Sorry, but this is not about you. From what I can tell you're not > > even using applications requiring systemd, so what are you actually > > complaining about? > > Which is exactly why I added never hearing of an *actual Linux user*. > It's not about me. It's about people who use Linux every day to get > their work done. They're clamoring for a lot of things, but a new init > system isn't one of them.
The same users who never griped about sysvinit will switch to the default init system and not gripe about that either. Ok, there may a moan or two but most will boot without problems, just as they did when there were other major changes to Debian. Please remember that a GR to adjust the TC's decision couldn't even garner 5 or so supporters in two weeks. That tells us a lot. > > > > > > Some guy writing an email about all the theoretical flaws in a > > > product doesn't make the product flawed for the millions who boot > > > their computers with it everyday, and never give it another > > > thought. The few who really have a problem with the way Linux inits > > > up could have been given upstart or systemd or, for that matter, > > > daemontools as an alternative, without affecting the vast majority > > > who saw absolutely no problem with the way it had been done. > > > > This is not "some guy", but the sysvinit maintainer. And I don't mean > > just the Debian package. > > http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/sysvinit > > OK, I'll bow down and worship his development chops, but that doesn't > mean I want to be forced not only to use his software, but to have half > the apps I use forced to march in step with his software. > > Now of course, you've pointed out that it's not about me, so let me say > that a heck of a lot of the Debian-User posts reflected *precisely* the > same attitude I spoke of in the preceding paragraph. > > > > > > And finally, note that the guy's email doesn't specifically > > > recommend systemd, and as a matter of fact seems to gravitate > > > toward upstart, which has a long history of doing the right thing > > > and is known by many. > > > > [clip a couple paragraphs proving that his email preceded systemd] > > Hey, don't blame *me*, *you* were the guy who used his email to > "prove" that there was something wrong with the old init system. And I > pointed out that nothing he said in that email in any way supported an > entangled bunch of stuff with tentacles growing into everything. And he > never mentioned encrypted log files. > > > > Mind also that Canonical shot > > themselves in the foot with the upstart CLA, which probably prevented > > a lot of folks (including the future systemd developers) to > > contribute and improve upstart. > > > > Another reason why upstart has always been considered "weird" is its > > upside down dependency tree, which is considered ilogic by many and > > leads to many "interesting" problems. For details you should probably > > read the Technical Committee debate (yes, all of it). > > The preceding two paragraphs are your opinion, which I neither agree > nor disagree with. They have little to do with the act of forcing whole > groups of users of distributions to switch away from what, from their > perspective, was already working, into something that, from what I've > read, is a pretty serious violation of the principle of encapsulation. > > > > > > And although his email doesn't talk about user space *applications* > > > getting entangled the init system, I have a feeling he wasn't > > > envisioning rank and file applications requiring parts of the init > > > system. > > > > And your point is? > > The point is that the email you used as "proof" that the current init > systems aren't working never anticipated an entangled monolith that > would have to be conformed to not only by system software, but by > applications. Your "proof" has nothing to do with systemd, and *if* > there were widely suffered problems with the current init systems, the > author of the email never said we needed to erect a monolith as the > cure, which just might be worse than the disease. > > > Kind regards, > > With kindness like this, I don't ever want to see you in a hostile mood. > > SteveT > > Steve Litt * http://www.troubleshooters.com/ > Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org > Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20140719131147.72c2d...@mydesq2.domain.cxm > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/19072014211727.4f02e1897...@desktop.copernicus.demon.co.uk
