* On 2015 28 Feb 17:07 -0600, T.J. Duchene wrote: > As for systemd having "tentacles", there is certainly truth to that, but > then the same argument could be said of Python or Perl. Both are rooted > so far into "standard" distributions that it is hard to extract them.
With all respect, T.J., those are merely programming languages--shell, C and C++ are also "hard to extract"--but none are trying to dictate policy. They are tools a programmer uses to solve a problem which parallels your point that systemd is a tool for distributions, but yet it is seeking to impose a policy many of us dislike, especially going forward. Debian users are a bit insulated at the moment as the freeze is keeping systemd at a given version. Its tentacles extend even further in later versions, AIUI. Other tools we're familiar with also dictate policy at some level such as dpkg and apt, however, the authors of those tools don't start throwing around the term "haters" whenever someone sets out to compile from source outside of their policy. Do you see the difference? systemd strongly reflects the personality of its developers. Unfortunately, that doesn't make it unique, but it's the first time I recall a lead developer being so outspoken since the CDR tools guy was routed around by Debian and others. Personally, the existence of systemd is fine if that is what an admin or user or distribution finds useful. Debian made its choice and after looking at it for a while I don't want to continue down that road. That doesn't make me a hater, I prefer the term discerning. - Nate -- "The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears this is true." Ham radio, Linux, bikes, and more: http://www.n0nb.us _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
