| 1 |
On Wed, 13 Dec 2017 12:34:03 +0100, Marc Joliet wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > I've no idea how good systemd is. It's not been through the normal |
| 4 |
> > process of choice and selection that other successful packages have. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
What process was that? The one where distro maintainers decide what to |
| 7 |
include in *their* distros? Isn't that how all packages, including |
| 8 |
systemd, make it into a distro. Debian even had a public debate and vote |
| 9 |
on it. You seem to be implying that systemd got into those distros by |
| 10 |
some stealth process, maybe a trojan or even osmosis? |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> > It was forced on people. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Nothing has been forced on anyone because no one is forced to accept the |
| 15 |
distro maintainers chosen defaults. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> > But being forced to have a binary system |
| 18 |
> > log, being forced (so I have heard) to have an http server |
| 19 |
> > running, ...., doesn't make it an attractive package for me. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> *All* of this is "so I have heard". What happened to researching stuff |
| 22 |
> as the better alternative to speaking out of your ass? |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
The systemd debate is different in that instead of fanboys that ignore |
| 25 |
the facts, the loudest arguers are a hate club that make up their own |
| 26 |
"facts". |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I'm amazed that all those developers at Debian, Red Hat, Arch and other |
| 29 |
distros ignored all these facts when they are normally so technically |
| 30 |
astute. Still, what to experienced developers know when compared to |
| 31 |
mailing list and forum posters... |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
Sir! Romulan warbird decloaki\xBB\xAE\xF5\xF7\xFC\xC1 NO CARRIER |
Archives