On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 01:55:30PM +0100, Didier Kryn wrote:
>

>     As a DIY fan, I support fully this vision. Further more, I think
> the concept of DIY-friendlyness, matches the principles of free
> software pretty well, to the point it could be used as a
> policy-checker. Eg:

>

> Is Systemd DIY-friendly? --> No,  therefore accept it only in
> non-free repository.
> Is Systemd anti-DIY?     --> Yes, therefore eradicate it.

>

Well, that's a quite peculiar way of defining DIY, and I believe
DIY-frinedlyness is not exactly the point here, right?

If you consider any non-trivial piece of software in a GNU/Linux
distribution, then you might find it DIY-friendly or not, according to
your level of experience/knowledge/patience. The simplest example is
the Linux Kernel: from a theoretical point of view, anybody could
prepare a DIY version of the Linux kernel, but if you take 1000
GNU/Linux users right now and ask them to compile a minimal working
kernel for their hardware configuration in just one attempt, then you
will get 850 kenels hanging at boot, 130 missing important drivers, 18
missing just ancillary things and only 2 of them actually working as
they should. Does this make the Linux kernel non-DIY-friendly
according to your definition?

We could make thousands of similar examples, from the manual
configuration of X to the setup of a working firewall configuration
form the command line. You could consider any of these things as
"DIY-friendly" from your point of view, but other users will almost
certainly disagree.

IMHO the problem of systemd is that it is just a crappy idea
implemented in a crappy way. Nothing to do with DIY-friendlyness. Just
plain ignorance of KISS and DOTADIW :)

My2Cents

KatolaZ

--
[ Enzo Nicosia aka KatolaZ --- GLUG Catania -- Freaknet Medialab ]
[ me [at] katolaz.homeunix.net -- http://katolaz.homeunix.net -- ]
[ GNU/Linux User:#325780/ICQ UIN: #258332181/GPG key ID 0B5F062F ]
[ Fingerprint: 8E59 D6AA 445E FDB4 A153 3D5A 5F20 B3AE 0B5F 062F ]