3 ms·

> Really!? This is (one of the) reason(s) why some of us greybeards loathe systemd (and just when I was starting to become "okay" with it, too). I am not sure

> Really!? This is (one of the) reason(s) why some of us greybeards loathe systemd (and just when I was starting to become "okay" with it, too). I am not sure why you imply that there was some evil scheme behind all this. In reality, things are a bit different: one group at Red Hat decided to put an end to TCP wrappers (which btw is something other distros already did a while back, we are late at the party), and another group then offered to make a more modern replacement available, that could cover some of the uses, in order not leave users in the cold. I am not sure why you think that's an evil thing to do? Isn't it nicer to drop something with a suggestion how to replace it then to drop it without replacement? Also, let's not forget: this functionality is implemented in the kernel, systemd merely adds knobs to expose this kernel functionality to the user. Hence, no, this functionality didn't really "show up in systemd". It showed up in the kernel, and systemd just wraps it to make it usable. I mean, this is a dilemma, isn't it? Whatever we do you are unhappy, right? ;-) Lennart

reacweb 9y ago
I do not think he is unhappy about this feature in systemd. He complains about the process and communication: removing a feature arguing it is useless then providing a replacement. Personally, I am very pleased with systemd and thanks to its novelty, it puts me on a same level as all the "greybeards". Continue the good work and please, take special care of the man pages.
thwarted 9y ago
I am not sure why you imply that there was some evil scheme behind all this. He didn't imply or say there was some evil scheme, and this reads like an attempt to play the victim card on your part. If no one uses the functionality is the reason for getting rid of it, then why add it back in? I seems like a lot of useless busy work to explicitly claim that no one uses something only to replace it.
throwme211345 9y ago
Lennart: you are a well paid tool and your designs and causes are not the causes of those of the prior generation of *nix users. When you understand that you will stop winking at us and understand that people will always be unhappy with your aggregations and the power that abets that aggregation. In the meantime we who can will look elsewhere and adopt and improve the model we understand and love because it is not broken and not improved by another design.

reacweb 9y ago

I do not think he is unhappy about this feature in systemd. He complains about the process and communication: removing a feature arguing it is useless then providing a replacement. Personally, I am very pleased with systemd and thanks to its novelty, it puts me on a same level as all the "greybeards". Continue the good work and please, take special care of the man pages.

thwarted 9y ago

I am not sure why you imply that there was some evil scheme behind all this. He didn't imply or say there was some evil scheme, and this reads like an attempt to play the victim card on your part. If no one uses the functionality is the reason for getting rid of it, then why add it back in? I seems like a lot of useless busy work to explicitly claim that no one uses something only to replace it.

throwme211345 9y ago

Lennart: you are a well paid tool and your designs and causes are not the causes of those of the prior generation of *nix users. When you understand that you will stop winking at us and understand that people will always be unhappy with your aggregations and the power that abets that aggregation. In the meantime we who can will look elsewhere and adopt and improve the model we understand and love because it is not broken and not improved by another design.