[gentoo-user] Re: Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

[Steven J. Long]

On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 09:42:33AM +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 09:36:02 +0100, Steven J. Long wrote:
>
> > > It's evolution. Linux has for years been moving in this direction,
> > > now it has reached the point where the Gentoo devs can no longer
> > > devote the increasing time needed to support what has now become an
> > > dge case.
> >
> > Yeah and that's just vague crap without content ;)
>
> I bow to your superior expertise in that field :)

Yup I have to filter out crap all day every day, usually crap I wrote.
 
> > > So which was it, one specific person or a coven of conspirators? This
> > > is open source, secret conspiracies don't really work well. If this
> > > really was such a bad move, do you really think the likes of Greg K-H
> > > would not have stepped in? Or is he a conspirator too?
> >
> > No he's just a bit naive: he wants to believe the best of people and did
> > not realise quite how sneaky Poettering is. No doubt he still doesn't.
> > But I'm sure he never foresaw some of their shenanighans, such as
> > claiming their newly inserted breakage was the fault of device-drivers
> > and everyone should switch to their funky new way of loading modules.
> > No-one seemed to think what Torvalds said was incorrect, even if they
> > disagreed with his tone.
>
> I don't understand why people keep banging on about Poettering in this,
> previously finished, thread.

You brought up the background, wrt Greg K-H. Regardless of how you feel, I'm
not alone in considering Poettering's (and Seivers') behaviour underhanded.

And all this stuff about the "situation just arose" is only true, if you
accept Poettering's propaganda^W arguments as given. So yes, he's very
relevant.

Sorry for not keeping current with the threads; I'll not post any more to
respect the deadline..

-- 
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)