Systemd 197 Brings "Quite Some Cool New Stuff"

[funkSTAR]

CA is evil unless somebody other than Qt does it. That's his official stance.

It would be quite easy for you to show everybody a quote or link where I state such opions. If you cant do that you might look like a idiot desperately trying to defend Qt despite the fact it is apiece of stinking commercial shit sold as closed source by a company who clearly moves to diverse Qt even further from linux.

[funkSTAR]

He has a point. If a piece of software works one way but a small group of people need it to work another way, that has no value for the core product, then that patch should be maintained seperate from core because otherwise you get what systemd had...lots of #IFDEF's that make the code harder to read and harder to follow. Also raises compatibility concerns that direct developers of core shouldn't have to worry about.

Yes. The ugly patches, the bug reports, the compability issues, the bikeshedding, the forksters and flamers all belong to the distros desiring crazy shit. Not the generic upstream.

It is that simple really.

[funkSTAR]

He doesn't have a point. We're talking about changes which Linus called 'some "crazy mode" where they have made changes that were known to be problematic, and are pure and utter stupidity'.

No not really. You are the only one bringing this dead horse to the market. Udev is maintained within systemd for a reason you know. Less maintenance.

If you disagree woth the current and former maintainers desicion then go back in time and take over their jobs. Im pretty sure you have the time and talent to do it, NOT.

[Ericg]

He doesn't have a point. We're talking about changes which Linus called 'some "crazy mode" where they have made changes that were known to be problematic, and are pure and utter stupidity'. Udev was a distro-agnostic technology, which was then tied with systemd without ability to choose. Trivial and unnecessary patches were made just to make it harder for non-systemd distros to BUILD the thing.

You can still run udev without systemd, granted you have to pull in all of systemd to get the udev source but you can choose to build JUST udev and no systemd components if you want to.

[pingufunkybeat]

He has a point. If a piece of software works one way but a small group of people need it to work another way, that has no value for the core product, then that patch should be maintained seperate from core because otherwise you get what systemd had...lots of #IFDEF's that make the code harder to read and harder to follow. Also raises compatibility concerns that direct developers of core shouldn't have to worry about.

He doesn't have a point. We're talking about changes which Linus called 'some "crazy mode" where they have made changes that were known to be problematic, and are pure and utter stupidity'. Udev was a distro-agnostic technology, which was then tied with systemd without ability to choose. Trivial and unnecessary patches were made just to make it harder for non-systemd distros to BUILD the thing.

This has nothing to do with distro-specific things in the kernel. funky is just trolling as usual. He just changes the topic when he's caught jumping into his own mouth.

CA is evil unless somebody other than Qt does it. That's his official stance.

[pingufunkybeat]

In kernel land it is quite clear distro stuff must stay out of mainline because of the maintenance burden, distros ships their own patched kernels. Same goes for systemd. Following your logic Linux is a walled garden too. How stupid is that!?

udev is not distro-specific.

[Ericg]

In kernel land it is quite clear distro stuff must stay out of mainline because of the maintenance burden, distros ships their own patched kernels. Same goes for systemd. Following your logic Linux is a walled garden too. How stupid is that!?

He has a point. If a piece of software works one way but a small group of people need it to work another way, that has no value for the core product, then that patch should be maintained seperate from core because otherwise you get what systemd had...lots of #IFDEF's that make the code harder to read and harder to follow. Also raises compatibility concerns that direct developers of core shouldn't have to worry about.

[funkSTAR]

Translation: CLA's are only acceptable for projects funkSTAR likes.

Please clarify which CLA crippled I like, because honestly I cant name many.

[funkSTAR]

Have you ever developed anything, at all, in your life?

Yes. And refused to work on CA shit.

[funkSTAR]

Overall, maintenance burden was increased because a fork was inevitable. The maintenance burden was reduced for the systemd guys but increased for the community as a whole by making udev depend on systemd in a "take it or leave it" proposition, typical of walled gardens in fact. Maintenance is one thing, but intentionally breaking compatibility that people rely on is a hostile act.

In kernel land it is quite clear distro stuff must stay out of mainline because of the maintenance burden, distros ships their own patched kernels. Same goes for systemd. Following your logic Linux is a walled garden too. How stupid is that!?