On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 11:08:58PM +0200, Lars Noodén wrote:
> On 22.03.2015 22:00, KatolaZ wrote:
> > Well, we might all agree on despising the systemd-nonsense on a
> > technical level, but nobody can say it's not free software without
> > being considered a fool. The systemd-nonsense is distributed with a
> > free software license, therefore it *is* free software...
>
> I think everyone is in agreement that they fulfill the letter of the
> license. The spirit may be lacking especially in regards to access.
> Being an enormous, interdependent hairball simply puts the code out of
> reach for all practical purposes as well as restricting use. Again,
> that's spirit and not letter and the license does not address that.
> There is however one large, long running project which does take code
> legibility and quality and those kinds of things into account, in
> addition to license. Maybe that's something for GPLv4, or maybe not.


But why you raise such issues only when we talk about the
systemd-nonsense and not, e.g., about GNOME, KDE, Xorg, and the vast
majority of enormous, intedependent hairballs you are using every day?
:)

My problem with the systemd-nonsense is not (exclusively) about its
*implementation*, through which I have not yet had the opportunity to
go, but about its *design principles*, which are clearly against two
simple concepts that have been the major strength of unix-like
systems: KISS and DOTADIW.

Even a "clean" implementation of the systemd-nonsense, which still
tries to manage every single aspect of the boot in a single process,
would not be able to solve this issue.

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 ]