1 |
Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: |
2 |
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 1:52 AM, Joost Roeleveld<joost@××××××××.org> wrote: |
3 |
>> On Tuesday, September 13, 2011 06:33:01 PM Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: |
4 |
>>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Michael Schreckenbauer<grimlog@×××.de> |
5 |
>> wrote: |
6 |
>>>> If gentoo follows fedora on this mandatory initramfs trail, I'll switch |
7 |
>>>> to FreeBSD completely. My software works on way more systems than just |
8 |
>>>> "Linux". |
9 |
>>> That's of course your prerogative. And, as I said before: "Linux |
10 |
>>> strives to be much more than Unix, and that means do things |
11 |
>>> differently." If you want to do things the same way that it was done |
12 |
>>> in the last 20 years, maybe Linux is not the best of choices. |
13 |
>> I read it before, but to be much more then Unix, Linux should be doing things |
14 |
>> better. Being different is what led to MS Windows' |
15 |
> But that's the thing: we (you and me) don't see the situation the same |
16 |
> way. To me, the proposed changes are for the better. |
17 |
|
18 |
You are one of very few that feel this way. |
19 |
|
20 |
> |
21 |
>>> I myself think the new technologies are worth to change the way we did |
22 |
>>> things before. But that's just me. |
23 |
>> The new technologies have great merit. But, the implementation of it isn't |
24 |
>> thought through. |
25 |
> In my humble opinion, what you just said is a little pedantic. You can |
26 |
> disagree with the proposed changes, you can argue why you think |
27 |
> another approach could be better. But just saying "the implementation |
28 |
> of it isn't thought through", is a little insulting to the devs. I |
29 |
> think they though about the implementation a lot. |
30 |
|
31 |
The dev only thought about himself and the distro he uses. He |
32 |
apparently didn't consider how what he is doing is going to affect |
33 |
others or he would have done something better. People have already |
34 |
explained what should be done so there is a better way to do this |
35 |
without breaking things. |
36 |
|
37 |
|
38 |
> |
39 |
>>>>> And maybe I shouldn't even mention it, but I don't use OpenRC. I use |
40 |
>>>>> systemd. And it works great on Gentoo. |
41 |
>>>> Well. Linux only. If I wanted a monoculture, I would use MS-Windows or |
42 |
>>>> OSX. |
43 |
>>> Relax man. I mention what I use: I'm not forcing you (or anybody else) |
44 |
>>> to use it. But I repeat (because I said it before) that I care about |
45 |
>>> Linux, and Linux only. |
46 |
>> If you care about Linux, why do you allow it to be broken in such a |
47 |
>> fundamental way? |
48 |
> Again, to me is not "breaking it". To me is "improving it". |
49 |
> |
50 |
> Regards. |
51 |
|
52 |
It is breaking it. Why you can't see that is beyond me. It has already |
53 |
been said what is supposed to be required for booting and /usr and |
54 |
possibly /var is not on the list. |
55 |
|
56 |
Dale |
57 |
|
58 |
:-) :-) |