3 ms·

It's quite likely that you and the other "systemd truthers" will forget all about this in a year or two and systemd will continue just as it has. I've been usi

It's quite likely that you and the other "systemd truthers" will forget all about this in a year or two and systemd will continue just as it has. I've been using it in my Linux distro for at least a year. It works fine-- quicker startup, handles hotplug correctly, rational management of services, and easy to add new ones. I'm sorry, there is no nice way to say this, but the systemd truther crowd is a lot like the Obama birth certificate crowd, or the anti-vaxxer crowd. Repeating the same discredited arguments over and over. And for the most part, composed of people who have no experience in what they're talking about, so why should their opinion even matter? Lennart's only mistake was to be bad at public relations and rather blunt about what he said in public. (I, on the other hand, can afford to be blunt because I'm just an anonymous guy, not a project manager).

dredmorbius 12y ago
Are the slurs really necessary? The "it works for me" fails to address those for whom it hasn't worked. Which includes, I'll note, any number of people who might generally be considered somewhat past beginner status with Linux: Alan Cox, Ted T'so, Bruce Perens, John Goerzen, among many others: http://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/2dgy45/if_systemd_is_so_controversial_why_has_it_been_so/cjrlu4v http://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/2dgy45/if_systemd_is_... Equating them to Donald Trump and a mob of Koch-backed disinformation shills isn't simply wrong, but trolling, of the level of Donald Trump and a mob of Koch-backed disinformation shills. I'll note once again that the focus on insults and lack of addressing specific points and issues really cheapens the case for systemd, and its proponents.
- the_why_of_y 12y ago
  The problem is really that there are so many FUD-filled talking points and conspiracy theories about systemd going round in circles that it's hard (at least for me) to tell whether somebody makes a genuine argument in good faith, if they also happen to mention what sounds like one or more of those talking points.
  - dredmorbius 12y ago
    And that's why I make a very strong point of attacking points and, in cases, ideologies, rather than individuals. If I've established that someone isn't exercising good faith, I'll change course. Particularly if they spout disproved statements on exceptionally well-established points (scientific or similar topics, generally). There's enough genuine grounds for disagreement on the systemd debate (though yes, there's FUD as well) that blanket dismissals strike me as inappropriate. That said, yes, refuting frequently-raised points gets tedious.

dredmorbius 12y ago

Are the slurs really necessary? The "it works for me" fails to address those for whom it hasn't worked. Which includes, I'll note, any number of people who might generally be considered somewhat past beginner status with Linux: Alan Cox, Ted T'so, Bruce Perens, John Goerzen, among many others: http://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/2dgy45/if_systemd_is_so_controversial_why_has_it_been_so/cjrlu4v http://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/2dgy45/if_systemd_is_... Equating them to Donald Trump and a mob of Koch-backed disinformation shills isn't simply wrong, but trolling, of the level of Donald Trump and a mob of Koch-backed disinformation shills. I'll note once again that the focus on insults and lack of addressing specific points and issues really cheapens the case for systemd, and its proponents.

the_why_of_y 12y ago
The problem is really that there are so many FUD-filled talking points and conspiracy theories about systemd going round in circles that it's hard (at least for me) to tell whether somebody makes a genuine argument in good faith, if they also happen to mention what sounds like one or more of those talking points.
- dredmorbius 12y ago
  And that's why I make a very strong point of attacking points and, in cases, ideologies, rather than individuals. If I've established that someone isn't exercising good faith, I'll change course. Particularly if they spout disproved statements on exceptionally well-established points (scientific or similar topics, generally). There's enough genuine grounds for disagreement on the systemd debate (though yes, there's FUD as well) that blanket dismissals strike me as inappropriate. That said, yes, refuting frequently-raised points gets tedious.