| 1 |
On 06/03/2014 01:08 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: |
| 2 |
> Who is "forcing" anything? pm-utils has been unmaintained FOR FIVE |
| 3 |
> YEARS. Any project that decides to stop using it is making just the |
| 4 |
> right decision; UPower just did the correct thing. And systemd had |
| 5 |
> *nothing* to do with it, except for providing a better, more reliable |
| 6 |
> alternative. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> That's what you and many others don't seem to understand: systemd is a |
| 9 |
> *BETTER* implementation for basically *ALL* the hodgepodge of |
| 10 |
> "solutions" that we had before in our plumbing layer. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
<snip> |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> There is no conspiracy here (although for *SURE* there are |
| 16 |
> scare-mongering conspiracy theorists); there is (sic) only developers |
| 17 |
> working in the best possible implementation for our plumbing layer, |
| 18 |
> and other developers realizing that, in Linux at least, supporting |
| 19 |
> anything besides systemd is a freakin' waste of time and resources. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> Again; you don't like it? Then do something about it instead of |
| 22 |
> posting in *-user lists. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
You are certainly keen in pressing your *opinions* here there and |
| 25 |
everywhere. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Sure, systemd is a more elegant solution than the patchworks that have |
| 28 |
been applied several times to the original SysV concept. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
However, the implementors and advocates of systemd have stepped on the |
| 31 |
concerns and violated certain basic freedoms of many folks in their zeal |
| 32 |
to see their vision become predominate. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
G.Wolfe Woodbury |
Archives