On 07/27/2016 01:57 PM, Simon Walter wrote:
> 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:
Sorry that was 'confuseling'. :/
>
> "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
::
Re: [DNG] Ugly, ugly news
