Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Debian Init System Coupling Vote Results

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

  • #21
    Originally posted by raulb View Post
    There 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.
    Dissent and difference of opinion is healthy when it's gone about in a healthy way. The way it was approached in this case was political maneuvering, shady wording, backroom deals, and fits of rage/mental instability when things didn't go his way. This is not healthy.

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by raulb View Post
      There 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?
      Sorry, it is not as simple as you try to show. Ian exceeded the line "I have a different opinion" several times. He is the first to call the whole topic as a war. The TC's decision was in 4 vs 4 only because 2-3 people of the TC are/were deeply involved into ubuntu. Close to be the 50% of the TC, really to much if you ask me.
      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


      • #23
        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


        • #24
          This 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.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by djzort View Post
            This 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.
            Unfortunately those "values" don't write code by themselves.
            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.
            Last edited by valeriodean; 19 November 2014, 05:55 AM. Reason: typo

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by djzort View Post
              This 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.
              Not really. Those that want to support other systems are unhindered by the TC from doing so.

              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


              • #27
                Nice. I like these latest voting results: the TC votes NOOP, and then the GR agrees with the TC and also votes NOOP. It's quite pretty like that.

                Comment


                • #28
                  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!
                  you are moron, Cha Z

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by raulb View Post
                    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.
                    'i have a right to fuck everyone else and you should obey' is a solid reason for 'demonize Ian Jackson as some sort of a villian' which is not sad at all

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by raulb View Post
                      Redhat 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
                      well, such bright future is worth celebration. at last linux will stop suffering from fragmentation

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X