| 1 |
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@×××××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 2014-02-20 12:43 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 6:38 AM, Tanstaafl<tanstaafl@×××××××××××.org> |
| 5 |
>> wrote: |
| 6 |
>>> |
| 7 |
>>> On 2014-02-19 2:04 AM, Daniel Campbell<lists@××××××××.us> wrote: |
| 8 |
>>>> |
| 9 |
>>>> |
| 10 |
>>>> For such a profile to be legitimate, systemd would have to be chosen as |
| 11 |
>>>> the default. |
| 12 |
>>> |
| 13 |
>>> |
| 14 |
>>> Ridiculous. Forget about Canek's rant... |
| 15 |
>>> |
| 16 |
>>> This is about *choice*. Also, I would argue the *opposite of what Canek |
| 17 |
>>> is |
| 18 |
>>> saying in this last rant... |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
>> Tanstaafl, can we please not use terms like "rants"? I'm just giving |
| 22 |
>> my opinion, trying to be respectful and civil to the others |
| 23 |
>> participants in this thread. I would appreciate if you do the same to |
| 24 |
>> me. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> Sorry, Canek, no offense was intended, but if you go back and re-read your |
| 28 |
> 'extremely overly enthusiastic' post (this plus the content is why I |
| 29 |
> referred to it as a 'rant'), while I agree with most everything you said, |
| 30 |
> your primary point - that it should be the people who *don't* want systemd |
| 31 |
> doing all of the work - was backwards, and that was what I wanted to point |
| 32 |
> out. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
I'm afraid this is the part that's backwards. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> So, please, don't take it as an insult. In fact you have done a very good |
| 38 |
> job of patiently spelling out the advantages of systemd, to the point I'm no |
| 39 |
> longer afraid of it taking over and devouring the linux world. |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
If systemd truly is, as you say "taking over and devouring the linux world" |
| 42 |
such that the majority of distro maintainers are individually choosing |
| 43 |
to use a feature or two from it, then yes, it definitely is the job of people |
| 44 |
who want to opt out of it to do the work. |
| 45 |
|
| 46 |
If Gnome wants systemd, and you don't, but you want to continue using |
| 47 |
Gnome, it's _your_ job to look for a method or patch or package or script |
| 48 |
that makes it work. |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
If udev wants systemd, and you don't, but you want to continue using |
| 51 |
udev, it's _your_ job to look for a method or patch or package or script |
| 52 |
that makes it work. |
| 53 |
|
| 54 |
If foo wants systemd, and you don't, but you want to continue using |
| 55 |
foo, it's _your_ job to look for a method or patch or package or script |
| 56 |
that makes it work. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
If everybody else wants to use systemd but you, it's your job to keep |
| 59 |
your system working the way you want to. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
Nobody's going to go out of their way to specifically and targettedly break |
| 62 |
your system, because you don't like their way. However, you can co-opt |
| 63 |
some package maintainer's way and say he's obligated to make a |
| 64 |
"pure" and "systemd uncorrupted" system for you. Because he's not. |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
> Bottom line: since Gentoo's default and primary init system is (and |
| 67 |
> hopefully will be for a very long time) OpenRC, it is on the systemd folks |
| 68 |
> to do the work to get systemd fully supported. |
| 69 |
> |
| 70 |
|
| 71 |
systemd IS supported and working. The problem arises when there are |
| 72 |
people that want to push for a "system with no systemd whatsoever" |
| 73 |
and act like it's the systemd maintainer's job to make that happen. |
| 74 |
|
| 75 |
-- |
| 76 |
This email is: [ ] actionable [ ] fyi [x] social |
| 77 |
Response needed: [ ] yes [x] up to you [ ] no |
| 78 |
Time-sensitive: [ ] immediate [ ] soon [x] none |
Archives