-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 08:33:40AM -0400, The Wanderer wrote: > On 2015-08-31 at 03:47, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > Slinging mud at people never helps: Lennart Poettering isn't out > > there "to get us" -- he's writing free software. He deserves to be > > treated respectfully just for that. > > While I understand what you're getting at here, and I believe I agree > with the underlying point, I do not agree with this actual statement. > > Some people develop and distribute malware as free software. Do they > deserve to be treated with respect for doing that? So let me correct my instance: I definitely don't assume malice on the part of Lennart and other systemd people. Just a design taste which is totally different from mine. [...] > Also, while I agree that Lennart is not out "to get us" in the sense of > malicious laughter and diabolical plans, he _does_ seem to outright > reject some principles which have been valued in the free-software world > for decades, to want to see those principles crushed to whatever extent > they interfere with his own goals, and to have zero sympathy or respect > in practice for those who do value those principles. The end result may > not be all that different. They should -- because now it's a matter of perspectives, and our only chance to survive that is to accept that. Just leave the respective others enough room for their perspective. > If some people decide that writing and pushing software designs which > are actively opposed to their values is not worthy of respect, the fact > that it is free software is not automatically enough to overcome that. > > > Systemd opponents often have their reasons for their opposition -- > > they aren't just "parroting" or "averse to change". They deserve to > > have their decision respected too. > > > > Let's get along together, m'kay? > > Agreed. For what it's worth, I don't think this particular iteration of > the discussion has gotten nearly as heated or as hostile or as harmful > as many of the previous ones have done. And luckily that. It's getting better. Phew :-) Regards - -- t -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlXkS9oACgkQBcgs9XrR2kb7OQCeKBwZj06lnifj3mgDMzK1Nm24 SPYAn2/jRDvNPlCtU7QNCMm29mVJ9lOf =5nB7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----