On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 08:44:06AM +0900, Joel Rees wrote: > One thing at a time. > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 1:23 AM, Ludovic Meyer <ludo.v.me...@gmail.com> wrote: > > [...] > > Your definition of mainstream is strange. > > What's strange about it? Do I need to provide a link to the dictionary > for you for that? I assume not. > > Given a community, there is a mainstream within that community.
Well, the point is "what is the community" exactly. Not the community in general but the community you are refering. As it could be "debian users", "all regular linux distro users" ( by regular, I mean desktop/server ), or all linux users ( ie counting embedded appliance ? ), or do we count android as well ? if we go just by the number, do we count users or systems, especially in the light of amazon/yahoo/google/facebook server, who likely have combined more server than there is desktop users of linux ( see a estimation in 2009 http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2009/05/14/whos-got-the-most-web-servers/ ) > We have a community of users of Linux-kernel OSses that provide, > without excessive effort, command-line shells, full C compiler suites, > administrator access to the device owner, etc. So your definition is the community of people who are root on a linux system. No problem, but that's not exactly clear. > (Sure, Android has No-root Debian and Terminal-IDE, but those are > third-party apps and don't give true administrator access. The sdk is > not something mainstream Android users can figure out without a lot of > effort, and takes a separate machine. Thus, Android is outside the > domain of discussion, and I shouldn't have had to explain why. Unless > you think that Linux OSses should start limiting the device owner from > doing things like adding users and changing the unit infrastructure, > in which case, the reason we can't communicate is clear.) > > Now, you note that Fedora claims in the range of a million users. Even > if their estimates are an order of magnitude high, that's hundreds of > thousands. > > How can that not be mainstream? Sure, so then Debian waited 3 years after the systemd hit the mainstream, if you consider Fedora to be mainstream. Therefore, your request of waiting was fullfilled. > Or are you under the misapprehension that there is only one > mainstream? Fedora and Debian are the mainstreams of what most of us > consider the Linux community. (Ubuntu being part of the greater Debian > community and Cent being part of the greater Fedora community.) You have been using the word as singular, so I was wondering which one you have been using. So based on the definition everybody will understand, Linux itself not being mainstream > Now, before you throw up any more quibbles, what I am talking about > when I say mainstream users is those users who have not specifically > chosen to be part of an experiment who are being dragged into an > experiment. The whole free software movement is mostly experiments. Experiment in the governance at the internet age, in term of software methodology, in term of research. There is people trying new things. The kernel itself is always evolving, getting new features, etc. > Except you'll now point out that Fedora is the "cutting edge" of Red > Hat's stuff, which is ignoring the issue. And Fedora has rawhide, and > Debian has sid, which is ignoring the issue. > > sid is locked into the future of stable, just like Rawhide is locked > into the future of Fedora. The release schedule does not allow for > major changes to be unrolled easily. Anything that gets accepted into > sid and passes into testing gets into stable, unless a lot of people > get excited during the testing phase. > > Now, is systemd a major change or isn't it? > > If you ask Poettering when he wants to sell systemd, it's a MAJOR > improvement. If you ask systemd proponents when they are sandbagging, > NO! NO! It's NOT a major change. (Sorry about the shouting, I'm just > describing how it looks to me. It does look like you guys are being > emphatic.) It depend on how you measure it. Number of impacted packages ? Number of impacted users ? Change of the name of the software, versionning ? Debian did switch to parralel init, was it a major change ( as it required to fix all initscript for lsb ) Gnome 3, kde 4, grub2, was it major change ? Xfree to xorg ? Glibc to eglibc ? Linux 2.0 to 2.2 to 2.4 ? Why none of this had a alternative ? There is lots of major change anytime and since the start of Debian. And again, you keep using word as if it was ginving any meaning to what you propose but there is no actionable items at all. > If it's a major change, it needs more time, and, I'm asserting, the > special handling of a temporary parallel fork. You mean like it was the case in the previous stable, where systemd was present but not as default ? And you say "more time", how much more time ? If that's not time based, what are the criteria, what are the bug that should be solved before saying "this cannot be done". And why aren't they listed as RC bugs ? And if you do not have those bugs, why aren't you looking for them, instead of asserting they exist without showing any proof ? > If it's not a major change, why do we have problems like the problem > of installing other inits? Sure, care to give a bug report or that's just some fluffy "there is problem but I cannot say what" ? -- l. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141117213707.gd31...@gmail.com
