Systemd Is The Future Of Debian

[pal666]

While I agree that a BSD version with the GNU userland is a little weird, neither of us have any right to tell these people what to do with their time.

but kfreebsd port motherfuckers tell everyone else to help them do their port

[Cyborg16]

Yay, a decision! Now back to work everyone...

[TheBlackCat]

I am sorry..? I have never said any such thing. You'll have to explain this one to me.

You said "I wish...". Pawlerson responded with "I wish...". You responded by lecturing Pawlerson about how "neither of us have any right to tell these people what to do with their time". If you didn't say that, then neither did Pawlerson, so your criticism was completely pointless.

[nanonyme]

While I agree that a BSD version with the GNU userland is a little weird, neither of us have any right to tell these people what to do with their time. Though I don't get why these side projects are seen with this much importance.

Well, if it's handled like eg Fedora handles CPU architectures, it's fine. Ie there are primary architectures and secondary architectures. Failures with secondary architectures doesn't cause the release to be completely stalled as long as primary architectures are okay. The same way Debian on non-Linux is an important but a secondary thing. They should definitely not be dropped but I consider a wise gesture from TC that them not working with systemd wasn't considered a goal-blocker at this point. The ports can come later if there's need.

[GreatEmerald]

And Jackson's back:

https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/02/msg00441.html

A bit less insanely angry than before, but still angry enough, apparently.

On a related note, I updated case 2 with Allbery's position statement now:

http://aceattorney.sparklin.org/jeu.php?id_proces=57899

And also some additional additions to case 1, since there were comments addressing some points there I hadn't seen before:

http://aceattorney.sparklin.org/jeu.php?id_proces=57684

[nanonyme]

I wonder by which authority Jackson is threatening with giving an ultimatum. Does he mean he'll formally resign from TC if he doesn't get what he wants?

[yogi_berra]

http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/29160.html

https://plus.google.com/108087225644395745666/posts/C3chC26khpq

https://plus.google.com/+ScottJamesRemnant/posts/SiDSNnr5JTY

That's for starters. Basically, the problem with Canonical's CLA is the asymmetry - Canonical has more rights than everyone else does. Other projects that are also under CLA do not have such asymmetry. Either because they're under a permissive license (Apache), and as such everyone can make proprietary derivatives regardless of CLA. Or in the case of the FSF, they assure you the CLA'd project will forever remain under a copyleft license, so again everyone is on equal footing.

No, the problem is that each of these people is employed by a company that is not Canonical and therefore each has a vested interest in making sure that their competitor is seen in a negative light. The CLA gives them an easy target even though it is no different than the F$F CLA.

Matt and Kay are employed by Red Hat, Scotty works for Google, none of these companies (including Canonical) have your interest at heart they are only concerned with their own profits.

[Gusar]

No, the problem is that each of these people is employed by a company that is not Canonical and therefore each has a vested interest in making sure that their competitor is seen in a negative light. The CLA gives them an easy target even though it is no different than the F$F CLA.

I can only *facepalm* at this. A post titled "Not all CLAs are equal" that goes on explaining just how they're not equal, and here you are claiming they are equal without providing any arguments except inane conspiracy theories. Dude, seriously?

[xeekei]

You said "I wish...". Pawlerson responded with "I wish...". You responded by lecturing Pawlerson about how "neither of us have any right to tell these people what to do with their time". If you didn't say that, then neither did Pawlerson, so your criticism was completely pointless.

Pawlerson did not respond to me, he responded to someone else. And it was less lecture and more "there's nothing we can do". He and I seem to agree.

[justmy2cents]

You know what?.. I think you are right.. I too, deep deep down inside, wish also that debian would drop BSD or hurd...and only focus just on linux.. It would make things a lot simpler that way.. Other distrobutions don't try to support tons of other weird non-linux platforms..
And I think it is noble of debian to try to be the "universal operating system", and that is why I think it is a little bit taboo for some one (like me for instance) to say things like "I wish debian would drop BSD", but when you think about it logically in a technical sense, it really makes sense to quit bending over backwards trying to make every package not only work on linux, but also on BSD or hurd, even though BSD is a microscopic fraction of the users that use debian..

In other words, even though BSD debian users are such a tiny minority, for some reason I think it would seem taboo for some one (for example, maybe a TC member or whom ever) to make a proposition to remove BSD support from debian.. So, therefore, I think BSD support will probably stay in debian for ever, even though it adds lots of more work to make every package compatible for BSD, even though it helps only 7 or 8 debian BSD users in the world..

well, minority or not. if they seem ok with doing it, why not? evolution will take its place sooner or later as it seems, since linux users are starting to hate to being tied to common low denominator. quite a lot of projects are using "i'm doing linux coz it has all the flashy...., i won't do other *nix". also, removal can be more than just "we don't do it", they could do that, yes... but, they could also set each fork to move freely with the best of their world and only connect to debian where it makes sense. right now, one could say that even debian hurd is being bogged down by lowest denominator. as sad as it sounds, yea... even hurd could do better than lowest common

pace at which linux evolves is simply to fast to keep up and in case of evolution like now... only possibilities i see is either debian *dropping* forks (personally, i would prefer if dropping would mean free hands of maintainers to go with the best in their world and only keep upper levels common trough debian) sometimes in future or future dropping debian as a linux if linux users start feeling they were being bogged down by their distro since it lacks this and that...