2014/10/15 1:47 "Brian" <a...@cityscape.co.uk>: > > On Tue 14 Oct 2014 at 12:06:11 -0400, Henning Follmann wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:02:10AM -0400, Steve Litt wrote: > > > On Tue, 14 Oct 2014 08:05:06 -0400 > > > Henning Follmann <hfollm...@itcfollmann.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 07:56:40AM -0400, Marty wrote: > > > > > It seems like free software employment and market share come with > > > > > increasing risk to objectivity and technical quality. It's my main > > > > > concern as a Debian user, as I consider recent trends. > > > > > > > > > > I hope that Debian members consider an amendment to restrict voting > > > > > rights for members who have a financial interest in Debian or in any > > > > > project used by Debian, to promote and protect the public interest. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Why, what is the reason for that? Explain why they are less objective > > > > or anyone having no financial interest is more objective. > > > > > > You know darn well, Henning. In anything, not just Linux, not just > > > Debian, not just systemd, when somebody has the responsibility of doing > > > the best thing for the community or other entity, but they also have a > > > financial stake in which way the thing goes, they have a huge incentive > > > to vote in a way detrimental to the community or other entity. This is > > > why bribery is a crime. > > > > > > > Well thanks for pointing that out. But this effort can be seen as a way to > > tilt the voting based on one aspect. And this being _systemd_. Now a group > > has identified that another group with "financial interest" is more likely > > to vote for sytemd. So lets disenfranchise those. That is equally bad. > > > > And second "financial interest" != bribery. This is a very distorted view. > > My work is based on debian as a development platform. So I do have a > > financial interest in debian being a stable platform. So I shall be > > disenfranchised? > > The depths are really beginning to be plumbed. We have a proposer of an > resolution linking financial gain with the work people do in their free > time to give us a free OS. This is rapidly followed by a seconder who > has found another bandwaggon to jump on. All this is supposed to be for > the benefit of Debian. > > Give me swearing in posts rather than innuendo and attempted character > assassination of a group dedicated workers.
Do you realize that a lot of your posts, jumping on anti-systemd topics, might appear, to casual examination, to be innuendo and/or character assassination? Any time people believe strongly in something, it becomes difficult to examine their own position carefully. (That's part of the meaning of my other sig.) You need to understand. We have a bunch of old fogies, including myself, whose training included the KISS mantra, Murphy's laws, the proverb, "Fast, correct, delivered on time, pick any two.", another proverb about how computers excel at making mistakes at high speed, another about how the computer could only do exactly what you told it to, so that bug is your fault, and many other metaphors that helped us understand the limits of the machine that is easy to see as a magic box. That last one is no longer true. You often don't know who wrote the compilers or libraries you use or how they interpreted the standards, so the best you can do is try to avoid corner cases and areas of known disagreement. Looking at the architecture and goals of systemd is, for me, like seeing the world turned upside down. (I could be more explicit, but I'm fully aware by now how it would be received here.) I look at the code and it does not reassure me in the slightest, even though, superficially, the code has significantly improved over the last year. You have to understand that. For people who were trained the way I was, systemd proves itself completely wrong by design. Any attempt to defend it is already tainted, and it's hard to work around that point of view. I know that we have a different set of expectations. Nanosecond instruction timings and multi-gigabytes of main memory make some things that were impossible to even consider when I was in college something in the way of commonplace now. Cellphones? My "feature phone" has more raw horsepower and more memory than any of the computers I used in college. (Unfortunately, I can't run a C compile on it, and sometimes the irony of that is a bit painful. Maybe that pain is part of why systemd gets my back up.) Some things become possible. Some do not. Instructions still take time, and they just basically aren't going to get any faster with any of the technology that we have any Moore. systemd tries to do too much, and fixing the corner cases will kill it eventually. Processors aren't going to get faster and save the day like they have with so many formerly impossible things. Hopefully, by that point, Poettering will cease to believe he's Supercoder and start having systemd delegate the hard stuff. Or someone will fork the code and fix what he is refusing to fix. He could have designed it that way from the start, but then it would look mostly like a re-write of sysv-init, and it wouldn't have been such a "cool new technology." Going further than that will, again, invite people to call "Foul!", so I'll refrain. Joel Rees Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens. All is a stream of text flowing from the past into the future. -- 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/CAAr43iNH0E92tM29vpLYfPXEk+UMN=cYBxuS-=y0jud-c5b...@mail.gmail.com
