On Thu, 12 Oct 2023 10:51:29 -0300
altoid via Dng <dng@???> wrote:

> On 12 Oct 2023 at 14:37, tito via Dng wrote:
>
> > ... a well designed common unified declarative init system service
> > format that takes into account the needs of the different init ...
>
> Think so?
> Then Linux is *absolutely and definitely* doomed.
>
> Today and in the present situation Linux does not need *different*
> init systems with *different* needs.

Hi,
it just needs the init system that pleases you?
that would be?

>
> What Linux needs is just *one* bloody init system.

Yep, we already have one bloody init system: it is systemd.

> Get it?

I do.

> ONE, however imperfect it may be.

We are already there it is very imperfect and it is everywhere.

> The Linux ecosystem cannot, at this point in time and in the present
> situation, by any means afford to squander more time and manpower.
>
> Do you know why the Republican loyalists lost the civil war
> (1936-1939) to the Nationalists in Spain?
>
> Leyend has it that it was because every move they made was first
> discussed over and over in endless assemblies.

Well you are right we do not need to discuss it is already all decided
and in case there should still be some minimal details to decide
you are here. Everything is best.

> In turn, Franco and his henchmen pushed through mercilessly and
> whoever dared question an order from the "Generalisimo" or ask why,
> was summarily shot.
>
> > ... and once it is standardized ...
> You know what *once* will end up being?
>
> This:
>
> "Once upon a time, there was a very interesting and widely used Unix
> type open source operating system with a great following ... "

Time will tell, I've heard this many times so far but we are still here.

> And that will be it.
>
> .