Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Group Calls For Boycotting Systemd

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

  • nasyt
    replied
    Systemd is a a "system daemon" and "basic userspace building block to make an OS from"

    Leave a comment:


  • System25
    replied
    Originally posted by gsmith View Post
    Stand against needless forced change (systemd, libgtk3)
    You better to take stand against cars and electricity. Humans surely can survive without cars and electricity. Yet, while these are not being absolutely mandatory for survival, they improve quality of life. Same could be told about systemd. Sure, system would not fail to boot without systemd. Yet systemd is meant to offload admin from many routine tasks and long term plan is to keep servers and desktops working with a minimum efforts. Say, imagine something gone wrong. Windows user would spend a day reinstalling OS and reconfiguring it. Hardcore *nix guru would spend 2 days in search of obscure root cause and could nail it down. But what about downtime?! In future systemd would allow to just revert snapshot in quick and simple ways. So it would take some seconds to grab your time machine (aka older snapshot), go back before point things gone wrong and try again. So system can be back into order in matter of SECONDS. Something that none of you, loud mouthed nuts can do. Except maybe some Solaris/ZFS admins (I wonder why nobody yells at Solaris for such features? Is it completely died?)

    P.S. and yeah, hate-driven development can produce heck a lot of lulz

    Leave a comment:


  • MartinN
    replied
    Originally posted by gsmith View Post
    Stand against needless forced change (systemd, libgtk3)

    http://youtu.be/dH0NkW_7968
    That was the funniest thing I've heard in a loooong time.

    Leave a comment:


  • gsmith
    replied
    Stand against needless forced change (systemd, libgtk3)

    http://youtu.be/dH0NkW_7968

    Leave a comment:


  • Luke
    replied
    Maybe SysVinit is so outdated even a "mediocre programmer" can do better?

    Originally posted by prodigy_ View Post
    Spot on. People are mistaking Lennart's manic hyperactivity for brilliance and his obsession with writing crapware for competence. The guy is a mediocre software designer and programmer at best. He has A LOT of energy but this doesn't necessarily mean he would be able to use it in the best interests of the community even if he wanted to.
    The issue here is not systemd vs what a hypothetical perfect programmer could write, rather it's systemd vs what someone else wrote decades ago(SysVinit), vs Upstart. If systemd is even slightly better than the others (and in my judgement it may well be), than any issues with the programming team are issues only of how systemd could have been a better program than itself. It only has to be better than Upstart and better than SysVinit to be good enough to switch to.

    Leave a comment:


  • interested
    replied
    Originally posted by TheBlackCat View Post
    Galileo is on record saying the opposite.

    Also from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo..._controversies
    Notice that this isn't about the Jesuit astronomers, but about some members of an academy. Looking at the paragraph above you will see that the Jesuit astronomers quickly repeated Galileo's telescopic observations, they just came to another conclusion.

    There where those who disputed some of his observations, and there where probably some from the (Pisa?) academy who refused to look into a telescope, but not the leading astronomers around the church. It wasn't his telescopic observations that got him into trouble.

    The point is that one of the greatest pre-telescopic astronomers, Tycho Brahe, had gathered lots of hard data about the solar system and stars in a previously unheard high quality, and that data, together with with several calculations and arguments about e.g. the size of stars, contradicted the Copernican heliocentric model, but fitted the Tychonic model very well. It is an ironic twist that the Copernicans resorted to theological arguments to counter this since they couldn't argue with the data.

    There was no way this dispute could have been settled by looking into a telescope, or Galileo's troubles would have disappeared when church astronomers repeated and confirmed his observations about e.g. Jupiters moons.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheBlackCat
    replied
    Originally posted by interested View Post
    There was nothing that they could see through the telescope that could decide for or against the heliocentric worldview. They weren't afraid of having their doctrines contradicted of the same reason.
    Galileo is on record saying the opposite.

    Also from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo..._controversies

    Originally posted by Galileo Galilei
    My dear Kepler, I wish that we might laugh at the remarkable stupidity of the common herd. What do you have to say about the principal philosophers of this academy who are filled with the stubbornness of an asp and do not want to look at either the planets, the moon or the telescope, even though I have freely and deliberately offered them the opportunity a thousand times? Truly, just as the asp stops its ears, so do these philosophers shut their eyes to the light of truth.
    Last edited by TheBlackCat; 26 September 2014, 01:07 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • interested
    replied
    Originally posted by TheBlackCat View Post
    Whatever your interpretation of the implications might be, it is well-documented, including by Galileo himself, that prominent astronomers of the day refused to look through the telescope because they felt that what they were told they would see contradicted Catholic doctrine of the day, including the heliocentric model of the day.
    There was nothing that they could see through the telescope that could decide for or against the heliocentric worldview. They weren't afraid of having their doctrines contradicted of the same reason.

    The point was that the Tychonic or geocentric models fitted the observable facts better, and that there lacked any evidence for eg. stellar parallax that could decide in the favour of a heliocentric view.
    In fact, the "catholic" astronomers actually saw the Tychonic system validated by the new telescopic observations; (see note 23: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tychonic_system)

    The astronomers that opposed the heliocentric view, including those of the church, had valid scientific reasons for doing so. Painting them as reactionary, dogmatic, unscientific fools that refused to accept telescopic observations simply isn't correct. The crime of the church wasn't the rejection of Galileo's ideas, but the use of force to make him stop talking about his ideas.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheBlackCat
    replied
    Originally posted by drSeehas View Post
    The *BSDs.
    You mean the ones that have had replacements for SysV for some time?

    Leave a comment:


  • drSeehas
    replied
    Originally posted by TheBlackCat View Post
    ... what are the use-cases that systemd supporters aren't considering?
    The *BSDs.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X