On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 18:40:43 -0600
Nate Bargmann <n0nb@???> wrote:

> * On 2015 17 Feb 16:48 -0600, Steve Litt wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 16:41:12 -0500
> > Neo Futur <dng@???> wrote:
> >
> > > > Nate, could you please summarize Luke's question? I haven't been
> > > > able to completely read any of his posts.
> > > its more than just a question, but you probably want :
> > >
> > > https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2015/02/msg00695.html
> >
> > The preceding link covers as much territory as the Roman Empire.
> > Nate asked the following:
> >
> > =================================================
> > And yet I find it telling that none has so far answered Luke's
> > question as to why they are not bothered about the recent changes
> > and direction as he is. Was it bad for me to presume that no one
> > would answer? =================================================
> >
> > So I ask *which* recent changes and direction? Systemd?
>
> That is what Luke is referring to AIUI. Here is the relevant portion
> of his post which, although long, I found to be good reading:
>
> -------------------8<--------------------
>
> so, marco, you wrote:
>
> > Again, you clearly do not understand well how systemd works.
>
> marco: understanding or otherwise how systemd works is not the point:
> the point is that there has been a unilateral decision across
> virtually every single GNU/Linux distro to abandon and remove *any*
> alternative to having libsystemd0 installed. historical precedent in
> the software industry and beyond tells us that placing so much power
> and trust in a single system and a single group should be ringing
> alarm bells so loudly in your head that you should wake up deaf after
> having first passed out with dizziness! :)
>
> so could i ask you, as i really genuinely don't understand, why is it
> that the lack of choice here *doesn't* bother you? i'm not asking for
> a technical review or a technically-based argument as to "why
> libsystemd0 is better" - that has been debated many many times and is
> entirely moot. i'm asking "why does *only* having libsystemd0 as the
> sole exclusive startup method, removal of which prevents and prohibits
> the use of a whopping FIFTEEN PERCENT of the available debian software
> base, and where that exclusive exclusionary process is being rapidly
> duplicated across virtually every single GNU/Linux distribution that
> we know; why does that *not* make you pause for thought that there
> might be something desperately and very badly wrong?"
>
>
> ----------------->8-------------------------------
>
>
> The question at the end of the quoted text will likely not be
> answered, at least in public, although there is a recent post which
> amounts to, "We like it this way". So be it.

Ahhh, that question.

Just for reference, this was what you posted earlier:

======================================================
And yet I find it telling that none has so far answered Luke's question
as to why they are not bothered about the recent changes and direction
as he is. Was it bad for me to presume that no one would answer?
======================================================

At the time (and until this email), I had *assumed* your reference to
"none" meant nobody on *this* list, and I was thinking that lots of
people on this list had expressed many things, especially back on
Debian-User.

If "none" referred to systemd afficianados, apoligists, and
anti-anti-systemd people, then it wasn't bad to presume they wouldn't
answer: they're more interested in propaganda than DIYable or
repairable OS's. And they believe Red Hat's poetterbs.

SteveT

Steve Litt                *  http://www.troubleshooters.com/
Troubleshooting Training  *  Human Performance