On 07/27/2016 01:54 PM, Steve Litt wrote:
> 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.
>

But then there is the slang "wheels" jk...

I agree and really do not care to discuss systemd. I know what it is and
am aware of it's history and it's bugs and it modularity.

What I don't like is tight coupling.

What I wanted to know about was why *Debian* decided to use it as the
primary init program.

I have been given some good references.

In the above post, the author, 'dasein', mentions GR. Does this mean
General Resolution?

Further on in the thread 'dasein' says:

"If we ignore the people who preferred the relatively neutral option 2,
we see from your own tally that 148 people preferred 'coupling is fine',
and 95 'coupling is unacceptable' - that seems to be about the most
direct way of measuring the size of the two poles to me, though
obviously it doesn't tell you whether they're voting on the principle of
maintainer autonomy, or on systemd specifically."

Does this mean that there was a vote? Do you call that a simple majority?

Simon