1 |
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@×××××××××××.org> wrote: |
2 |
> On 2014-02-20 10:36 PM, Mark David Dumlao <madumlao@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
>> |
4 |
>> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@×××××××××××.org> |
5 |
>> wrote: |
6 |
>>> So, please, don't take it as an insult. In fact you have done a very good |
7 |
>>> job of patiently spelling out the advantages of systemd, to the point I'm |
8 |
>>> no |
9 |
>>> longer afraid of it taking over and devouring the linux world. |
10 |
> |
11 |
> |
12 |
>> If systemd truly is, as you say "taking over and devouring the linux |
13 |
>> world" |
14 |
> |
15 |
> |
16 |
> *I* never said that. Others have though, and some still apparently believe |
17 |
> this to be the case. Admittedly it is those voices that prompted me to start |
18 |
> this thread. I wanted to get opinions from other list members about how |
19 |
> systemd is/will/should impact the gentoo community, and I'm glad I did. The |
20 |
> result is that I now no longer believe most of the negatives being spread |
21 |
> about systemd, and no longer fear that it is 'taking over and devouring the |
22 |
> linux world'. |
23 |
|
24 |
That's a hypothetical. I'm pointing out that, whatever the situation is, the |
25 |
reasoning and its justification is backwards. Hence the IF. |
26 |
|
27 |
It is one thing entirely to say you don't like some software, and another thing |
28 |
entirely to obligate everyone else in the world to never depend on it. |
29 |
|
30 |
Your preference of uclibc doesn't obligate every C project in the world to |
31 |
disavow glibc. |
32 |
|
33 |
Your preference of firefox doesn't obligate every desktop environment in |
34 |
the world to disavow chromium. |
35 |
|
36 |
Your preference of openrc doesn't obligate every package maintainer in |
37 |
the world to disavow systemd. |
38 |
|
39 |
Hence the general case above. If you want to use foo without using bar, |
40 |
but the upstream and package maintainers of foo want to use bar, then |
41 |
it's _your_ responsibility to make foo work without bar. PERIOD. |
42 |
|
43 |
You were making it sound like it's the responsibility of the developers of |
44 |
bar to package versions of foo that don't depend on bar. This is madness. |
45 |
|
46 |
> Thankfully there is no problem then, since no one is pushing for 'a system |
47 |
> with no systemd whatsoever', beyond what exists already. |
48 |
|
49 |
We seem to be reading different mailing lists. The same tinfoilers have |
50 |
been practically whining for this like it's systemd's fault. |
51 |
-- |
52 |
This email is: [ ] actionable [ ] fyi [x] social |
53 |
Response needed: [ ] yes [x] up to you [ ] no |
54 |
Time-sensitive: [ ] immediate [ ] soon [x] none |