The content is fine. That isn;t the issue. The presentation is a little
dense and overly verbose. Could be presented in an more accessible and
direct way. mason on this very list claimed that my rewrite had
improved his original copy for the new Software Freedom page, so I am
confused as to why it would be a problem to do the same with this new
material in order to integrate it seamlessly with the current page.
(golinux scratches head . . . but has other things to do so can't ponder
the whiplash for long)

On 2019-10-07 19:01, Alexey Zilber wrote:
> I also agree that Mason's explanation is good. At least it's not
> "Savaged by Systems".
>
> -Alex
>
> On Tue, Oct 8, 2019, 4:24 AM Daniel Reurich <daniel@???>
> wrote:
>
>> On 08/10/19 05:37, golinux@??? wrote:
>>
>> </snip>
>>
>>>>> One para on why systemd isn't in the spirit of free software and
>> one
>>>>> on open
>>>>> source vs free software is still on my personal wish list.
>>>>
>>>> Here you go:
>>>>
>>>> One of the unique attributes of the free software world
>>>> historically has
>>>> been the modular nature of system components. There was
>>>> opportunity for
>>>> anyone with an interest in doing so to write a replacement
>> for a
>>>> component, and if the software they wrote was reliable and
>>>> presented novel
>>>> features, it might become the preferred solution for that
>>>> particular task.
>>>> The end result of this was that a wide variety of code from a
>> large,
>>>> diverse group of free software developers saw use in many
>> systems,
>>>> giving
>>>> free software users a choice in what software they used.
>> Because
>>>> of this,
>>>> we have a number of excellent free software solutions to
>> serve almost
>>>> every function - mailers of various sorts, loggers, web
>> servers,
>>>> process
>>>> monitors, domain name system software, with the list going on
>> nearly
>>>> indefinitely, and this flexibility and suitability has made
>> free
>>>> software
>>>> the preferred platform for writing and running software
>> services
>>>> of all
>>>> types.
>>>>
>>>> One of the issues with systemd is that, contrary to the Unix
>>>> philosophy of
>>>> "do one thing and do it well", systemd seeks to do all things,
>> and to
>>>> explicitly crowd out other software by offering
>> tightly-integrated
>>>> modules
>>>> that are heavily dependent upon one another. As operating
>> systems
>>>> integrate systemd, the temptation exists to run more and more
>> systemd
>>>> code, with each piece being difficult to replace individually
>> given
>>>> systemd's lack of interest in portability or standards
>> compliance.
>>>> Systemd
>>>> seeks to define a new, defacto standard, controlled by the
>> relatively
>>>> small and isolated group of systemd developers, rather than
>>>> adhering to
>>>> portable, proven, multi-vendor POSIX standards, honed through
>>>> decades of
>>>> experience running complex, critical, real-world computer
>> systems.
>>>>
>>>> Note: I'm fond of my commas and would prefer that if this is
>> used, it
>>>> remain
>>>> largely intact.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, my . . . That is way too wordy and out of character with the
>> rest
>>> of the very friendly and accessible free software page. File this
>> under
>>> "be careful what you wish for". LOL!!! Sorry for your trouble.
>>>
>> Actually, I thought it to be a rather nicely rounded explanation
>> that
>> would be useful for explaining the broad reason why systemd is
>> anti-thetical to free software. We should use it...
>>
>> Dan
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Reurich
>> Centurion Computer Technology (2005) Ltd.
>> 021 797 722
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> devuan-dev internal mailing list
>> devuan-dev@???
>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devuan-dev
> _______________________________________________
> devuan-dev internal mailing list
> devuan-dev@???
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devuan-dev