* Jos Poortvliet
On Wednesday 15 June 2011 14:04:57 Per Jessen wrote:
Jos Poortvliet wrote:
On Wednesday 15 June 2011 09:08:20 Per Jessen wrote:
Alberto Passalacqua wrote:
Hi,
<snip>
Sorry, that's apparently how the openSUSE community works - if we're not happy with it, it's up to us to change it. And I don't think it's better done by not discussing changes at all.
I'm sure that is not what Alberto meant.
I wonder what the value of this meta-discussion is. I don't see how we have to ask for discussion?
The maintainers of systemd and the maintainers of sysvinit want to have systemd. That's quite clear. Nobody has stepped up with an alternative proposal and offered to do better. So the decision has been made implicitly by those who do the work. That is how a FOSS community works.
Every now and then I see references to "Product Management" - don't they have a say?
Not over openSUSE, no.
AFAIK SUSE is not a charity but has a business interest in protoyping and evaluating features before including them in their flagship product. In this case they seem to even sponsor some of its development which of course makes sense from theri POV if there are customers demanding a feature which systemd provides (as it was mentioned in another mail).
Anyone can step in and change the outcome and that has always been the case. I agree with Alberto that you seem to want to discuss everything. Is that just to wave your flag around and keep others from working?!?
Ridiculous suggestion. You misunderstand, I have no interest in discussing everything.
This also keeps active people, those who want to see things done and not over-talked, away from the mailing lists, with the most evident consequence that lists become less useful.
I'm sorry, but how do those "active people" know what to get done if they don't discuss it with the community? (obviously there is lots of stuff that does not warrant much discussion).
"discussion" is useless if it's for the sake of discussion.
Certainly. Maybe we should have said "deliberation" instead, as I think Guido Berhoerster also did initially.
Deliberation suggests the people involved haven't thought about it and I think that is not a fair assesment. Really, if anyone has objections, he/she should
As if that hadn't happened before in the Linux sphere. And when things do not turn out as anticipated we end up with code churn, endless wasted development hours, and regressions when switching to something supposedly better (remember the hal->DeviceKit->u* mess when hal was found to have become too complex and unmaintainable?).
bring them up. In absense of those it makes sense to trust the experts, don't you think?
No, I do have concerns and I have mentioned them, most importantly it is not even clear yet where systemd's aspirations actually end, ie. what it will attempt to replace next. I've also mentioned before that an init system, or better a "platform" as its main developer refers to it, is not an arbitrary package but affects the direction this project takes. In addition there are costs associated with switching which are spread among many oS developers. Since SUSE is investing into systemd development it apparently has a vested interest in forcing its usage in oS, so I guess it makes no sense to further discuss this here. If there is an executive managment decision that requires no further discussion then lets please clearly name it as such in the future. -- Guido Berhoerster -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org