On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 12:27:59 +0100, Steven J. Long wrote: > > I don't understand why people keep banging on about Poettering in > > this, previously finished, thread. > > You brought up the background, wrt Greg K-H. Regardless of how you > feel, I'm not alone in considering Poettering's (and Seivers') > behaviour underhanded.
You're not. While I'm loathe to use words like underhanded, I certainly don't like the direction things are taking with systemd. I'm not defending them, but I don't see this as their fault. The potential for breakage was always there, their way of dong things just found it sooner. > And all this stuff about the "situation just arose" is only true, if you > accept Poettering's propaganda^W arguments as given. So yes, he's very > relevant. We''ll just have o disagree on his relevance here. the problem is that the split is arbitrary, there is no clear definition of what is and is not needed at boot time for all systems, and that is going to lead to incorrect decisions made with the best of intentions (not that I am accusing the previously mentioned of having those). -- Neil Bothwick "I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it."
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
