On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 19:10:00 -0700
Rick Moen <rick@???> wrote:

> Quoting Simon Walter (simon@???):
>
> > On 07/27/2016 01:56 AM, Rick Moen wrote:
> > >Quoting Go Linux (golinux@???):
> > >
> > >>This is a must read on the politics and votes that ensured a
> > >>systemd future for debian:
> > >>http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=120652
> > >
> > >To my astonishment and pleasure, I found this well argued,
> > >reasonable, and a good effort to cast light on a complicated
> > >subject. Thanks.
> >
> > Yes, thank you for this. It's the kind of thread I wanted to look
> > over.
>
> There are places he plays a bit loose, but they're a very forgiveable
> form of rhetorical excess. E.g.:
>

>    If someone characterizes systemd as an “init system,” you may
> safely assume that s/he is either utterly clueless or deliberately
> obfuscating the discussion.

>
> Well, no. If someone characterises the thing as _only_ an init
> system, that would be true.

I maintain that, for practical purposes, the preceding quote from dasein
is completely true and not at all loose or rhetorical excess. Let's
replace "init system" with "wheel" and "systemd" with "a car":

=================================================
If someone characterizes a car as a “wheel,” you may
safely assume that s/he is either utterly clueless or deliberately
obfuscating the discussion.
=================================================

True on the face of it. A person saying the whole is a mere part is
either stupid or up to no good.

SteveT

Steve Litt 
July 2016 featured book: Troubleshooting Techniques
     of the Successful Technologist
http://www.troubleshooters.com/techniques