6 ms·

Now that it's been adopted, using that supposed compatibility is "doing it wrong". It has only been adopted in non-Stable distributions of Debian... I hav

• nisa 12y ago
  From the "About" page on complete.org (OP): > I am a developer for the Debian GNU/Linux operating system, and have been since the late 1990s
• nknighthb 12y ago
  You said elsewhere: > I run Debian Testing and was able to upgrade ~5 machines without a hitch. So which is it? Is systemd in Debian hitch-free or not? Or do you only care about your own systems and no one else's? > I have seen folks belittled Meaning you've already lost the argument. > I'd be interest to see posts from Debian/Ubuntu maintainers Yeah. Screw users, right? systemd, land of ever-shifting rhetoric. You guys should get out of the software development business and run for Congress.
  • bkor 12y ago
    It seems you're rather upset with people who like systemd. That's fine. However, you're putting a lot of words into my mouth. I like systemd. According to you because I like systemd: - my opinion is "screw users" - belittled you with compatibility concerns - arguments are nothing more than rhetoric. I find such discussion style rather poor. Instead of diving people into pro/con or black/white (with us or against us), try expressing things a bit more granular. Further, it seems you're out to win arguments by selectively quoting and changing the meaning of what you've quoted. If there are bugs in systemd, they have to be fixed. I'm one of the biggest systemd advocates. This combined proves you are incorrect on what people liking systemd say or suggest.
    • Karunamon 12y ago
      If there are bugs in systemd, they have to be fixed. Philosophically, yes. Realistically? The behavior of some of the people on the systemd bug tracker[1] is the single most convincing argument against adopting it. It might break things? Sure, it's a pretty massive change. People are going to have to re-learn how to do a lot? Again, it's a pretty fundamental shift in a lot of ways. This is expected. The developers will fucking backtalk you[2] and make political issues out of clearcut things? Uh.. no. That's forkworthy behavior. That's dysfunctional enterprise behavior, which is something I'd imagine the average hacker hates instinctually. And sure, in the end, those bugs were addressed, but it took an outburst from Linus and widespread, public coverage (and I'm sure no small amount of offline discussion among the systemd folks) for it to happen. Poettering is on record as wondering why systemd attracts so much hate. He only need look in the mirror. [1]: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76935 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76935 [2]: http://www.muktware.com/2014/04/linus-torvalds-happy-systemd-author-kay-sievers/25151 http://www.muktware.com/2014/04/linus-torvalds-happy-systemd...
      • bkor 12y ago
        That bugreport is often misunderstood. You only gave one example, and that example is flawed. The bugreport was to change systemd behaviour to avoid a kernel bug. The bug should be fixed at kernel, that is why the notabug was there. Further, it is ack'ed that this should've been handled much better. I have seen loads and loads of examples where "no" is said in some email conversation based on technical arguments. > And sure, in the end, those bugs were addressed, The bug was fixed in systemd git before Linus got involved. > Poettering is on record as wondering why systemd attracts so much hate. He only need look in the mirror. Here you're being an ass. This bugreport was not handled by Lennart. Lennart is also not talking about disliking systemd, he's talking about people taking things way too far towards him. He talked about people raising money to hire an assassin.
        • Karunamon 12y ago
          The bugreport was because systemd misused the kernel command line. If your code causes something else to break, it is your code's fault!