On Mon, 29 Feb 2016, Rainer Weikusat wrote:

> Jaromil <jaromil@???> writes:
>
> > On Mon, 29 Feb 2016, poitr pogo wrote:
> >
> >> On 2/25/16, Rainer Weikusat <rainerweikusat@???> wrote:
> >> (...)
> >>
> >> > Considering that shared objects and dynamic linking were
> >> > originally a MULTICS feature (dating back to about 1965) and
> >> > introduced to UNIX(*) with SunOS 4.0 in 1988, the best course of
> >> > action to deal with people who are so afraid of changes that they
> >> > keep rejecting "useful new features" for 51/ 28 years in a row is
> >> > "roundly ignore them". Especially if they claim to be
> >> > 'modernizers' because the ancient technology they're so wedded to
> >> > is so seriously ancient that large groups of people meanwhile
> >> > forgot about that ... ___
> >>
> >> Is this some kind of pro systemd propaganda ? :D
> >
> > I am not the only one to perceive Rainer's contributions as rather
> > questionable for the conversations here. However, be it propaganda or
> > not, what is really annoying is that it goes quite far off-topic, by
> > abstracting a specific issue into a general political consideration of
> > how history goes.
>
> In case you want it specific: 'libdb must not be updated because nameless
> "Bitcoin developers" are afraid that this may introduce "issues" for
> them is a red herring'. The same applies to any other software on the
> system which could possibly interact with "bitcoin software", eg,
> prominently, the kernel.
>
> I consider the sentiment behind this request based on irrational fear
> about the unknown, for the stated reasons, as this "opinion" has never
> been gone unvoiced for long ever since dynamic linking was introduced.
>
> > I think we should be concerned by specific issues rather than such
> > generic and political debates.
>
> Sometimes, 'specific questions' ("Should bitcoin developers get 'special
> protection' against measures users of bitcoin software might employ, eg,
> as specifically mentioned, library security updates"?) have answers
> depending on general considerations ("no more than the other 500 less
> prominent developers who considered that de rigueur for their own,
> mental well-being before").

You aren't really contributing with any of your emails, if you can not
help the Devuan developers on a technical level regarding my subject,
please refrain from further mailing on this list. What you are doing is
just derailing, nothing more.

~ parazyd