1 |
On 6/3/2014 1:08 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@×××××××××××.org> wrote: |
3 |
>> On 6/3/2014 11:10 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@×××××.com> wrote: |
4 |
>>> Maybe. The thing is, this is going to keep happening, as more and more |
5 |
>>> infrastructure migrates towards systemd. Perhaps a news item everytime |
6 |
>>> it happens is unrealistic? |
7 |
|
8 |
>> Weren't you the one saying that those of us who were voicing concerns that |
9 |
>> systemd proponents were ultimately wanting to FORCE systemd on everyone were |
10 |
>> just scare-mongering conspiracy theorists? |
11 |
|
12 |
> Who is "forcing" anything? |
13 |
|
14 |
I was specifically referring to your comment that: |
15 |
|
16 |
> The thing is, this is going to keep happening, as more and more |
17 |
> infrastructure migrates towards systemd. |
18 |
|
19 |
That comment right there - specifically the word *infrastructure* - |
20 |
screams to me 'we intend to take over the world'. |
21 |
|
22 |
And yes, as devs get lazier (decide to rely on systemd rather than build |
23 |
it to work independently of the init system), this will in fact result |
24 |
in *users* (read: those lacking the skills to code every program out |
25 |
there to work without systemd) eventually being *forced* to switch to |
26 |
systemd. |
27 |
|
28 |
That is simply the reality. You can ignore it if you like, but it |
29 |
doesn't change it. Forced is forced. |
30 |
|
31 |
> That's what you and many others don't seem to understand: systemd is a |
32 |
> *BETTER* implementation for basically *ALL* the hodgepodge of |
33 |
> "solutions" that we had before in our plumbing layer. |
34 |
|
35 |
Time will tell, and you may even be right. The problem is, average users |
36 |
really don't have a way to prove this to themselves, all we see is the |
37 |
wailing and gnashing of teeth as stuff constantly *breaks* that *never* |
38 |
broke before. |