On 06/03/2014 10:05 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 8:37 PM, Greg Woodbury <redwo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sure, systemd is a more elegant solution than the patchworks that have
>> been applied several times to the original SysV concept.
>
> Glad to see you recognize that.
>
>> However, the implementors and advocates of systemd have stepped on the
>> concerns and violated certain basic freedoms of many folks in their zeal
>> to see their vision become predominate.
>
> Oh FFS. What "freedoms" have you had "violated"? The "freedom" to
> mandate what other developers should write, or what packages they can
> use as hard dependencies?
>
> You never had that "freedom". That's the developer freedom; if you
> want some of that, become a developer.
I was a developer for more years than I really care to remember. I
still try to contribute in ways and areas that I'm not so out-of-date with.
Furthermore, it is a two-way street (as I see it.) The developers write
things they find interesting and enjoyable to work on, and users use
things that are interesting and work well. For many, seeing other folks
use what they have written provides a significant measure of the
enjoyment derived from the exercise.
To see this as only freedom for the developer is part of an attitude
shift over the years that only lessens the overall usefulness of Linux
and FOSS. It does, in fact, push quite a few folk I know away from the
Linux arena. It is, to use a political analogy, like the people who
claim there "is not any real difference" between *any* opposing
political movements -- that neglects taking into account a great deal of
technical and historical details.
I occasionally think about forking projects and fixing some of the
things I think are the most egregious fsck-ups in some of them, but then
I really look at what I'm doing and what I enjoy doing, and realize that
I won't get enough (emotional?) reward for giving up time in other
significant parts of my life.
> Or help Samuli to maintain upower-pm-utils; that would be *much* more
> helpful than spreding FUD about cabals and conspiracies.
There is no need for me to invent Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt -- the
folks involved are doing quite well on their own. Also, history (for
those not doomed to repeat it [1]) provides all that is required to make
calling it a "cabal" [TINC - there is no cabal![2]] There never was a
Usenet Backbone Cabal in any formal sense, but there was plenty of
semi-(un)coordinated activity -- based largely on shared ideals -- that
gave that appearance. {I was there when Usenet/Netnews was invented,
closely observing, making minor and not-so-minor contributions, and was
responsible for some of the "cabal-like" activities.}
The mere coinage of terms like "Lennertware," whether or not deserved,
show that there is a widespread awareness that some developers, in my
opinion, have over developed egos. [3]
It is all so trite to say "become a developer and DO something instead
of complaining" but it is not a realistic thing to say when the
problems are getting so large and interconnected. Furthermore, it
denigrates and devalues the "pseudo-democratic" processes that FOSS and
Linux have worked for years to nurture.
[1] Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
(paraphrase of George Santayana)
[2] See, for starters:
http://http://en.wikipedia.or/wiki/Backbone_cabal
[3] All Gods have feet of clay.
source uncertain.
(perhaps a reference to "Ozymandias"?
--
G.Wolfe Woodbury
{once upon a time AKA ...!duke!ggw}
