Originally posted by raulb
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Debian Init System Coupling Vote Results
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by raulb View PostThere is nothing 'nonsensical' about it. Dissent and difference of opinion is supposed to be healthy but there seems to be a concerted effort to cast dissent as 'troublemaking' and demonize Ian Jackson as some sort of a villian which is a bit sad coming from a Linux community.
If you do not want dissent or difference of opinion then the Debian constitution should be amended without the possibility of raising GRs. There is no need to demonize other points of view. Presumably these structures exist so that these discussions can happen, and now that the discussion has happened and a democratic choice has been made, it shows everything is working as intended, healthily. What's not to like or dislike?
A GR would was the best option from the day 1, avoiding the bad influence of that overcrowded presence of ubuntu people in the TC. That was the problem: a giant interest conflict that hided the debian devs majority opinion behind an apparent 4 vs 4. If you remove the vote of the ubuntu people, what happen to the 4 vs 4? A clear win of systemd, strange isn't it?
Comment
-
systemD a product of Today
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin
Said that citation, I'll say that we are living in a period of history where people doesn't care about principles (because we have never had to fight for); so silently, slowly and softly "they" are taking away our pieces of freedom that our grandparents hardly conquered. These are our last 2 generations. We don't have the bravery to fight, we prefer just those 2 pennies in exchange.
Comment
-
Originally posted by djzort View PostThis is a disappointment for anyone who believes the openness and choice are important in a community that is supposed to be built upon those two values.
Because debian is deeply dependent by volunteer, you cannot to force someone to write code for a scope that he doesn't care about. Simply like that.
Comment
-
Originally posted by djzort View PostThis is a disappointment for anyone who believes the openness and choice are important in a community that is supposed to be built upon those two values.
On the other hand, init scripts no longer need to be the lowest common denominator for compatibility.
The virtue of a declarative syntax is that now competitors can utilise the same syntax with their own implementations without the risk of 300 line shell script messing things up by e.g. assuming a bash shell instead of a dash shell.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chaz View Post*As was discussed once before I am writing "System D" in the way in which proper nouns have been written in English for the last few hundred years, and not the way that the System D creators do it, because I think their way is stupid. Moving on!
Comment
-
Originally posted by raulb View PostDissent and difference of opinion is supposed to be healthy but there seems to be a concerted effort to cast dissent as 'troublemaking' and demonize Ian Jackson as some sort of a villian which is a bit sad coming from a Linux community.
Comment
-
Originally posted by raulb View PostRedhat and derivatives and Debian and derivatives are firmly in the systemd bandwagon. This effectively makes systemd the defacto init for 99% of Linux systems. .... A lot of developers will target systems that have systemd
Comment
Comment