6 ms·

I like the off-by-one there, and choose to interpret it as intentional. The fourth item is what I find to be the most interesting. I really hadn't thought abo

I like the off-by-one there, and choose to interpret it as intentional. The fourth item is what I find to be the most interesting. I really hadn't thought about it that way before. I remember the discussion in Fedora mailing lists around systemd and iirc the criticisms were mostly actually answered and handled. But in Debian it really wasn't and it fractured the community a lot. It is perhaps the case that the "anti-systemd" crowd wouldn't be "anti-systemd" if they felt like they had been heard. Perhaps that's the bigger lesson we should all be learning: to listen closely and respond respectfully.

einpoklum 3y ago
> I like the off-by-one there, and choose to interpret it as intentional. Amongst our weaponry are such elements as... I'll come in again. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1495-nobody-expects-the-spanish-inquisition-our-chief-weapon-is-surprise https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1495-nobody-expects-the-spa... > It is perhaps the case that the "anti-systemd" crowd wouldn't be "anti-systemd" if they felt like they had been heard. I would say it is the other way around. systemd would not have been adopted as the default init system, had the anti-systemd crowed not been ignored. But that's not even the main point. The grievance is not about how some individuals did not "hear". It is about the _possibility_ of such a decision being taken with that level of technical-community resistance; i.e. the expectation is that decent process would not depend only on the benevolence of those in charge. That's why it's a structural rather than a personal failure IMNSHO. And again, there's the conflation, or bundling, of the multiple decisions: 1. Offer systemd in the distribution 2. Make systemd the default option for the distribution 3. Necessitate installation & use of systemd with the distribution I am specifically pretty certain that Devuan would never have been forked if systemd were merely a configurable installation option in Debian.
- throwaway7356 3y ago
  > I am specifically pretty certain that Devuan would never have been forked if systemd were merely a configurable installation option in Debian. You can't stop 5 or so random people on the internet from starting the 100th irrelevant Debian-based derivative.

einpoklum 3y ago

> I like the off-by-one there, and choose to interpret it as intentional. Amongst our weaponry are such elements as... I'll come in again. https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1495-nobody-expects-the-spanish-inquisition-our-chief-weapon-is-surprise https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/1495-nobody-expects-the-spa... > It is perhaps the case that the "anti-systemd" crowd wouldn't be "anti-systemd" if they felt like they had been heard. I would say it is the other way around. systemd would not have been adopted as the default init system, had the anti-systemd crowed not been ignored. But that's not even the main point. The grievance is not about how some individuals did not "hear". It is about the _possibility_ of such a decision being taken with that level of technical-community resistance; i.e. the expectation is that decent process would not depend only on the benevolence of those in charge. That's why it's a structural rather than a personal failure IMNSHO. And again, there's the conflation, or bundling, of the multiple decisions: 1. Offer systemd in the distribution 2. Make systemd the default option for the distribution 3. Necessitate installation & use of systemd with the distribution I am specifically pretty certain that Devuan would never have been forked if systemd were merely a configurable installation option in Debian.

throwaway7356 3y ago
> I am specifically pretty certain that Devuan would never have been forked if systemd were merely a configurable installation option in Debian. You can't stop 5 or so random people on the internet from starting the 100th irrelevant Debian-based derivative.