On Wed, 8 Oct 2014 21:48:10 +0900 Joel Rees <joel.r...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 6:16 PM, Andrei POPESCU > <andreimpope...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mi, 08 oct 14, 11:41:05, Joel Rees wrote: > >> 2014/10/08 6:07 "Andrei POPESCU" <andreimpope...@gmail.com>: > >> > > >> > On Ma, 07 oct 14, 12:00:57, Steve Litt wrote: > >> > > > >> > >https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=727708 > >> > > > >> > > Read ^H^H^H^H skim the thread. Notice how, in the first 10 > >> > > posts, > > (I'm wondering whether that's the first ten, or the first ten > currently visible.) What I'd meant was go to the top of the file and read the first ten posts. Seeing that the messages aren't consecutively numbered, let me summarize: msg# Statement 5: Paul Tagliamonte calls for CTTE vote 10: Thorsten Glaser says part of the decision revolves around whether one or many inits supported. 15: Paul Tagliamonte says we've only ever supported one, and if you'd like more, please start a new thread about that. In other words, it's not part of this discussion, here's your hat, what's your hurry? 20: Thorsten Glaser reiterates his position in an unambiguous way. 25: Paul Tagliamonte moves the bug somewhere else, tells Thorsten Glaser not to re-add it to the current bug discussion. If any of you wonder why other inits aren't supported, you now see that Paul Tagliamonte had the admin priveleges to move bugs, and was feeling the juice of his authority. 30: Thorsten Glaser asks to have all developers, via a GR, whatever that is, decide the issue, rather than the CTTE. 35: Paul Tagliamonte says "I believe this is within the ctte's jurisdiction, given 6.1 section 2." And he says some other things. But what I get out of it is "Thorsten Glaser, your silly little opinion doesn't count". 40: Thorsten Glaser states the advantages of having a distro at least compatible with a sysvinit PID 1, says if the only two choices were Upstart and systemd he'd support Upstart, and calls systemd's actions a "land grab". 45: Lucas Nussbaum writes, and I really have to quote him, "I agree [to a tech-ctte vote]. I don't think that many substantial new arguments are going to be brought by waiting more on this topic. And it is clear that we have reached a point where not having clear guidance is severely hurting the project." Let me (Steve Litt) paraphrase this: "We've used sysvinit for way too long, but now, all of a sudden, we just can't wait anymore, and must make our selection RIGHT NOW, with no further investigation." Nice! I'll stop there, but suffice it to say that I've scanned most of it, and in every case, people with the password and the authority stifled those who said "wait, there are problems here, let's find different alternatives", and those with the password and authority deliberately made it into the false choice of systemd, Upstart, or "forever sysvinit". I wasn't all that upset about systemd's monolithic entanglement and dependency maze (perhaps best summed up by Thorsten Glaser's phrase "land grab"), because I figured they'd put in systemd, it would be a mess, and a couple years from now they'd do it the right way. But when I saw the decision making process revealed by this thread, I became deeply distrustful of the top people in Debian. 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/20141008094341.70ae2...@mydesq2.domain.cxm
