| 1 |
On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 08:47:30 -0400 |
| 2 |
Harry Holt <harryholt@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Here's another take from Christopher Barry, in a mailing list post from |
| 6 |
> just last month: |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> systemd is a coup. It is a subversive interloper designed to destroy |
| 9 |
> Linux as we know it, foisted upon us by the snarky |
| 10 |
> we-know-better-than-you CamelCase crowd ... |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Thanks for this. It's good to hear others rant against systemd. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
However, as has already been indicated in this thread, complaining |
| 16 |
and ranting are not enough. There have to be developers stepping |
| 17 |
forward with alternatives. If Sievers, et. al. are the only ones |
| 18 |
willing to push an agenda then they, and systemd, will rule. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I recall my earlier experiences with Linux and CD-RAM. The Linux |
| 21 |
drivers to access CD-RAM, controlled by certain folks as SuSe, |
| 22 |
were poorly written and functioned terribly. But since no one |
| 23 |
else came forward with alternatives (everyone just bitched on |
| 24 |
the forums) the sub-optimal code was kept and, for all I know, |
| 25 |
is still present. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Of course, it's not that easy for someone to just jump into |
| 28 |
systems programming without an extensive background. Still, |
| 29 |
one can keep hoping for more forks and more differing distributions |
| 30 |
but it seems that Linux is destined to become highly monolithic |
| 31 |
in the future. |
Archives