On Mon, Aug 11, 2014 at 11:58 PM, David Haller
On Sun, 10 Aug 2014, Pascal Bleser wrote:
I think that the pretty emotional component of the reactions and statements on the topic does reinforce the idea that it is mostly about that psychological aspect.
If you step back and look at the big picture, the whole process of how systemd crept up as a "just a new init" up to what it's now (and what it may gobble up next), you may reevaluate those reactions ...
You, and other members of the anti-systemd crowd, make it sound like systemd developers held a gun to the heads of developers and forced them to join the systemd project, forced them to adopt sytemd in their distro, forced them to adopt systemd in the desktop environments. Projects voluntarily chose to join systemd because they thought it would benefit their project. Distros voluntarily chose to adopt systemd because they thought it made handling init easier compared to the alternatives. Desktop environments chose to adopt systemd because it provides features they think are useful that aren't available anywhere else. As far as I can tell, you are essentially arguing that because you don't like systemd and don't find it useful, all the groups that do find it useful aren't allowed to rely on it. There is a simple solution: have something else that provides the features these projects are looking for. But you aren't going to get very far trying to tell projects that they can't make use of features they find beneficial at all because you don't happen to like the software that provides those features. Whether you find the features of systemd useful is irrelevant. As long as systemd and only systemd provides the features that projects are looking for, those projects are going to use systemd. The anti-systemd crowd needs to start putting in the work to provide alternatives, or systemd usage is just going to keep growing. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org