On 6/3/2014 1:08 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés <can...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Tanstaafl <tansta...@libertytrek.org> wrote:
On 6/3/2014 11:10 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés <can...@gmail.com> wrote:
Maybe. The thing is, this is going to keep happening, as more and more
infrastructure migrates towards systemd. Perhaps a news item everytime
it happens is unrealistic?
Weren't you the one saying that those of us who were voicing concerns that
systemd proponents were ultimately wanting to FORCE systemd on everyone were
just scare-mongering conspiracy theorists?
Who is "forcing" anything?
I was specifically referring to your comment that:
The thing is, this is going to keep happening, as more and more
infrastructure migrates towards systemd.
That comment right there - specifically the word *infrastructure* -
screams to me 'we intend to take over the world'.
And yes, as devs get lazier (decide to rely on systemd rather than build
it to work independently of the init system), this will in fact result
in *users* (read: those lacking the skills to code every program out
there to work without systemd) eventually being *forced* to switch to
systemd.
That is simply the reality. You can ignore it if you like, but it
doesn't change it. Forced is forced.
That's what you and many others don't seem to understand: systemd is a
*BETTER* implementation for basically *ALL* the hodgepodge of
"solutions" that we had before in our plumbing layer.
Time will tell, and you may even be right. The problem is, average users
really don't have a way to prove this to themselves, all we see is the
wailing and gnashing of teeth as stuff constantly *breaks* that *never*
broke before.
