On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 10:02 PM, Tanstaafl <tansta...@libertytrek.org> wrote: > On 2014-02-20 10:36 PM, Mark David Dumlao <madum...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 8:53 PM, Tanstaafl <tansta...@libertytrek.org> >> wrote: >>> So, please, don't take it as an insult. In fact you have done a very good >>> job of patiently spelling out the advantages of systemd, to the point I'm >>> no >>> longer afraid of it taking over and devouring the linux world. > > >> If systemd truly is, as you say "taking over and devouring the linux >> world" > > > *I* never said that. Others have though, and some still apparently believe > this to be the case. Admittedly it is those voices that prompted me to start > this thread. I wanted to get opinions from other list members about how > systemd is/will/should impact the gentoo community, and I'm glad I did. The > result is that I now no longer believe most of the negatives being spread > about systemd, and no longer fear that it is 'taking over and devouring the > linux world'.
That's a hypothetical. I'm pointing out that, whatever the situation is, the reasoning and its justification is backwards. Hence the IF. It is one thing entirely to say you don't like some software, and another thing entirely to obligate everyone else in the world to never depend on it. Your preference of uclibc doesn't obligate every C project in the world to disavow glibc. Your preference of firefox doesn't obligate every desktop environment in the world to disavow chromium. Your preference of openrc doesn't obligate every package maintainer in the world to disavow systemd. Hence the general case above. If you want to use foo without using bar, but the upstream and package maintainers of foo want to use bar, then it's _your_ responsibility to make foo work without bar. PERIOD. You were making it sound like it's the responsibility of the developers of bar to package versions of foo that don't depend on bar. This is madness. > Thankfully there is no problem then, since no one is pushing for 'a system > with no systemd whatsoever', beyond what exists already. We seem to be reading different mailing lists. The same tinfoilers have been practically whining for this like it's systemd's fault. -- This email is: [ ] actionable [ ] fyi [x] social Response needed: [ ] yes [x] up to you [ ] no Time-sensitive: [ ] immediate [ ] soon [x] none
