3 ms·

No revisionism here: 1) in no possible way "I'd like to propose systemd" can be seen as forcefully "pushing" something 2) please go read (or re-read) the full

No revisionism here: 1) in no possible way "I'd like to propose systemd" can be seen as forcefully "pushing" something 2) please go read (or re-read) the full discussion behind the Debian tech-ctte decision[1] to understand how little the GNOME dependency mattered [1] https://bugs.debian.org/727708 https://bugs.debian.org/727708

pdkl95 11y ago
1) systemd was not pushed at GNOME; the GNOME dependency was the leverage used to push systemd at distributions. This let the systemd cabal look innocent with GNOME getting the blame for any compatibility issues. This is a very common political tactic that is popular because it gives plausible deniability and usually requires more than a sound-bite to refute. Surely you've seen it before. 2) I read debate on the Debian tech-ctte and surrounding discussion in realtime when it happened. GNOME compatibility was a key concern, and while the idea of dropping GNOME was briefly considered, concerns about supporting GNOME ended up having significant sway and a big reason - though not the only reason - why systemd won the vote. This would normally be a purely technical decision, but in this case the GNOME->systemd dependence only exists because Lennart Poettering created it.
- EmanueleAina 11y ago
  If you talk about cabals, there's no point in having a sensible discussion. Te existence of secret cabals is a matter of faith, and you cannot really discuss things of faith with reason alone. In any case, both GNOME and Debian willingly adopted systemd. Thinking otherwise implies that GNOME and Debian developers are silly idiots: it that's the case, why bother. If it's not the case, they know what they want and nobody forcecully "pushed" anything.
  - pdkl95 11y ago
    I was waiting for someone to reveal their ignorance by calling out "cabal". Why should anybody trust your other comments about the history of systemd when you don't know that "cabal" is Lennart Poettering's term for the systemd core developers? http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linux-systems.html http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linu... The systemd cabal (Kay Sievers, Harald Hoyer, Daniel Mack, Tom Gundersen, David Herrmann, and yours truly) ...
    - EmanueleAina 11y ago
      You either don't know the meaning of the word "irony" or you have some issues with cause→effect relations.

pdkl95 11y ago

1) systemd was not pushed at GNOME; the GNOME dependency was the leverage used to push systemd at distributions. This let the systemd cabal look innocent with GNOME getting the blame for any compatibility issues. This is a very common political tactic that is popular because it gives plausible deniability and usually requires more than a sound-bite to refute. Surely you've seen it before. 2) I read debate on the Debian tech-ctte and surrounding discussion in realtime when it happened. GNOME compatibility was a key concern, and while the idea of dropping GNOME was briefly considered, concerns about supporting GNOME ended up having significant sway and a big reason - though not the only reason - why systemd won the vote. This would normally be a purely technical decision, but in this case the GNOME->systemd dependence only exists because Lennart Poettering created it.

EmanueleAina 11y ago
If you talk about cabals, there's no point in having a sensible discussion. Te existence of secret cabals is a matter of faith, and you cannot really discuss things of faith with reason alone. In any case, both GNOME and Debian willingly adopted systemd. Thinking otherwise implies that GNOME and Debian developers are silly idiots: it that's the case, why bother. If it's not the case, they know what they want and nobody forcecully "pushed" anything.
- pdkl95 11y ago
  I was waiting for someone to reveal their ignorance by calling out "cabal". Why should anybody trust your other comments about the history of systemd when you don't know that "cabal" is Lennart Poettering's term for the systemd core developers? http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linux-systems.html http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linu... The systemd cabal (Kay Sievers, Harald Hoyer, Daniel Mack, Tom Gundersen, David Herrmann, and yours truly) ...
  - EmanueleAina 11y ago
    You either don't know the meaning of the word "irony" or you have some issues with cause→effect relations.