On Sun, 5 Apr 2015 18:25:15 -0500
"T.J. Duchene" <t.j.duchene@???> wrote:

> ,
> > >
> > > You're soooo demotivating! Systemd was never a problem, it's
> > > wonderful, you're just a troll! Just go with the program and use
> > > it: This is the 21st century, so we need a 21st century init
> > > system. Systemd is modular, it's comprised of nothing but
> > > modules. I think Don Armstrong should kick you off of
> > > Debian-User. If you don't like Debian, make your own!
> > >
> > > Oh wait, you resigned, Don Armstrong can't fire you. Oh wait, you
> > > *are* making your own.
> > >
> > > :-) :-) :-)
> > >
> > > For all of you not familiar with Debian-User, my reply was a
> > > humorous parody of what happens on Debian-User every time
> > > somebody questions the devine wisdom of systemd.
> > >
> > > Congrats, Go Linux!
> > >
> > > SteveT
> > >
> [T.J. ] Are you guys just making jokes or are people really like that
> over at Debian User these days? I realize systemd is not everyone's
> favorite topic, but this seems "over the top" and exaggerated. You
> mentioned an Armstrong before. Is the trolling really that bad?

The behavior there has always been abyssmal. Don't take my word for it,
see the archives. The real meat of the systemd wars occurred in August,
September, October, and a little of November. Look at it.

[snip]

>
> Steve, I'd like to ask you a question from a technical standpoint. I
> am not being sarcastic or condescending in any way whatsoever. If
> you, in your experience, think that perhaps systemd is an attempt to
> clone a Windows desktop, the server side of Linux be damned?

The preceding isn't a technical question. Technically, systemd is a
Rube Goldberg machine. Whether it's on a server, a desktop, or a sewing
machine, it's a ridiculous architecture.

> I would
> think that myself, except that RedHat is paying Poettering. It seems
> to me that there are really two sides in this: the veteran UNIX
> server crowd and the FLOS Linux Desktop people?
>
> Thoughts anyone?

Yes. UNIX veterans have seen lots of stuff. They were here when PCs
liberated people from timesharing mainframes. They were there when they
got a little too big for their britches and got their own marketplace
cut into by cheap little DOS boxes. They were there when all sorts of
$99 Unixes, and various BSDs, and GNU/Linux married the user control of
the commodity DOS machines with the spectacular architecture of Unix.

They've seen the results of multimillion line programs (typically Cobol
on mainframes) and know they want no part of that stuff, because it
takes an act of congress to modify/repair such programs. They've seen
all sorts of silly schemes come and go, most of which lacked reasonable
test points for diagnosis.

Now look at the FreeDesktop guys. I don't know their motivations. I
*do* know they've been coopted by Red Hat. It looks like the FreeDesktop
guys want to forever add features and specifications to the GUI
interface. They apparently don't know the cost of complexity. They're
just having fun. With less than stellar regard for computing, and for
user control over his own computer.

In the words of "Jeff" from
http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/10/has-gnome-3-decided-that-people-shouldnt-want-screen-savers/ ,
" I'm done with my desktop being someone else's research project."

SteveT

Steve Litt
Twenty Eight Tales of Troubleshooting
http://www.troubleshooters.com/28