Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Users/Developers Threatening Fork Of Debian GNU/Linux

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    I'm not gonna argue here any more.

    Open Source fanatics have become way too hateful and offensive. Never in my life I've been called "a troll" and "a BS'er" in one thread. However unlike open source fanatics I actually help Open Source as much as I can, instead of verbally assaulting people.

    Comment


    • #22
      Pipe down, people.

      This has nothing to do with whether systemd is good or bad. This is to make sure that every user of Debian can choose systemd or any other init system.

      This also has nothing to do with maintaining init scripts - it is perfectly fine *not* to have an init script for an alternative init system. A bug only occurs according to the Ians proposal where it is actually impossible to write an init script such as to be able to start the software at all. For example, logind could not start up, unless systemd was running as PID 1, before that was fixed.

      Ideally any user of a Debian system should be able to start up their machine with init=/bin/sh and start up all services manually from there without using any init system at all. That ensures maximum flexibility and choice, which Debian is intending to maintain.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by pal666 View Post
        that means no fucking shell scripts executing binaries from all of fucking /usr/bin
        Shell scripts are absolutely easy to debug. I've done that numerous times. Shell scripts are also rock solid.

        Obfuscated C code in systemd is nothing like that - a hell to debug, a hell to find problems.

        Keep pouring your BS "arguments".

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by aigarius View Post
          This has nothing to do with whether systemd is good or bad.
          This call is exactly about the fact that systemd is bad, unmaintainable and extremely complex. Also, it has an enormous RAM usage - and it's hardly suitable for embedded systems. In fact Microsoft is now laughing their collective arses off - NT's bootloader has become better than what Linux has turned into.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by birdie View Post
            Have you seen any of those segfaults? BS'er is you 'cause SysVinit basically has no way of crashing. It runs bash/sh /etc/rc.d/rc.sysinit and then waits for certain signals. That's all.

            But you personally developed SysVinit and systemd so you know better.

            LOL, more links in Google. Without actually following a single link. Wow, a new level of idiocy.
            bser is you because to user it does not fucking matter whether it pid1 crashed, or bash script if system is unusable anyway
            i personally developed init in terms of building distribution, so i know better than random moron like you
            btw i run f20 every day and systemd never crashed for me. may be you should keep your hands away from you system to avoid screwing it ?

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by pal666 View Post
              bser is you because to user it does not fucking matter whether it pid1 crashed, or bash script if system is unusable anyway
              i personally developed init in terms of building distribution, so i know better than random moron like you
              btw i run f20 every day and systemd never crashed for me. may be you should keep your hands away from you system to avoid screwing it ?
              Welcome to my ignore list. I'm not a random moron. And my hands are alright - unlike your dirty mouth which has to be shut.

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by birdie View Post
                Shell scripts are absolutely easy to debug. I've done that numerous times. Shell scripts are also rock solid.

                Obfuscated C code in systemd is nothing like that - a hell to debug, a hell to find problems.

                Keep pouring your BS "arguments".
                ok, so you are just some moron, who thinks he understands shell but doesn't understand plain c
                i.e. you are not really a programmer, so you don't get to dictate how things must be done
                Last edited by pal666; 20 October 2014, 09:32 AM.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Who is this "we"? I can't find any list of members, not even a count of members. Does anyone know who is involved or how many people are involved?

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by birdie View Post
                    Have you seen any of those segfaults? BS'er is you 'cause SysVinit basically has no way of crashing. It runs bash/sh /etc/rc.d/rc.sysinit and then waits for certain signals. That's all.
                    Right, because if you can't figure how it could be crashing, then all those people experiencing crashes must be imagining it.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by aigarius View Post
                      It is pretty clear to most Debian developers that it is a bug for software to depend on being started by any particular init system.
                      it is a bug in some people's brains what makes them think that some software depends on being started by any particular init system. in reality software depends on some runtime interfaces which it uses. any init system can provide them.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X