-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 On 05/13/2014 05:44 AM, Matthias Urlichs wrote:
> Hi, > > Carlos Alberto Lopez Perez: > >> "[...] they don't want you to have the option of NOT using their >> stuff. """ http://www.landley.net/notes.html#23-04-2014 >> > IMHO this is a gross mis-characterization. <snip - I don't have the time for the trouble it would take to address this> > It's also demonstrably false. Otherwise systemd would not be > compatible with existing SysV init scripts (to the point that I can > run them manually and, if they happen to load the LSB stuff, they > transparently redirect themselves through systemd), systemd would not > forward to rsyslog, … systemd being compatible with existing infrastructure is not a point in contradiction of "they don't want you to have the option of NOT using their stuff", since that compatibility only comes into play if you are, in fact, using systemd. The practice of tying different things together in such a way that you can't use one of them without using the others, particularly when the "one" in question may be depended on or required by something not actually related to any of the others at all, might be closer to the point being raised. I understand that, and potentially why, it may make sense internally to have different components of "the systemd project" (is there a better name for this? systemd, journald, logind, possibly polkit / consolekit if I'm reading parts of the discussion correctly, the list apparently goes on) interdepend on one another, to package (some of) them together rather than separately, to have dbus services used outside of systemd be implemented (only) in (a way which depends on) systemd, et cetera. I do, however, still think that this sort of design is bad from a perspective of interacting with outside software, unless your goal is in fact for your software to become unavoidable (or avoidable only with considerable effort) - i.e., as quoted above, to take away the option of not using your software. Which isn't to say that the systemd developers and/or advocates necessarily think of things that way; it's entirely possible that any given one of them, or even all of them, may be operating entirely in good faith at all times. That doesn't change what it looks like from outside, though, which is what leads to views and comments like the one quoted above. - -- The Wanderer Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny. A government exists to serve its citizens, not to control them. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJTcitwAAoJEASpNY00KDJrEyYQAKB4spfqDA6IvP1J1+EWf9Qr Snd1R4gPvJPtKr9MM3MOZfhJpEmLO8vygJH3qL3rrO+BMB8O7ASsbrL2XZArPG4T 20vNs3cf2vje2MJkrkh8EDGEBroahK/BkEkJeNxyM9DK3UHdigERu3SbmthUY05I Z8hTB+BNMHzqKR/Ot7mlNs6Af69wy5JPyD9VeLgdFy9PP5dWg26lXN9jrRQW+9/9 vYdoHjmGYLU9/DgAZ7y6NRD/lX60/IEjzQ8IbIlnITRz+C1h628MGhAs6Wf6iPqk Mc3Bxxq5P4o/0+2HbpX7nImC4mvVkDyLKmY7mqM1xWnxCY6Wy/dtbHqlFcbyNf7y fXWwJZFOejc+uSvtAphFmE+LDNvbl9u1dTa7rX++qQtFneNFev7BzPRFQfiPBXNh NP99uqrlvp+dGMX67NH/veVbnwEOgYUwPVIziKg8sCcwOAzhKS9dWmn6El9IeECb XgUCT/boWO3zVVGVUfeXbR8JAQtWR3xsKevf96rY7mbcgw+Ooq6I3OiZtnkuVTY4 mD7Gwgu7JmQKbrnCZgdvowhgMPhRADB/DzhbsLKw0jQDWAoS6cdqNLCJOSY1JtAG pqzXHXYOSbutoAH22yhpVEE80gf9x0uIs88eh11jZBcdXluiVuKJI/ZpW6yEwIoo NIF7XiKNm2dulEJY+PoB =yuai -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/53722b70.7010...@fastmail.fm