Re: [opensuse] Another example of deliberate system? supporters deliberately sabotaging previously working software...
http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse/2015-08/msg00043.html 7.4kb
OK I see. Well if we compare it to my emails, this one is short and not a tirade. I'm skeptical this word gets used just as often in the same situation with men, so my position is that it's best set aside. Linda used the word rant elsewhere so I think it's fine to say that. Anyway, the clear part is frustration has boiled over. That's good motivation. But what I'm missing is the connection to systemd. It's not necessary but if someone wants to school the clueless guy: Did /etc/sysconfig/sendmail have user comments that were stepped on when the file was replaced with an update? Or were these comments in the original and just removed in the updated? rpmnew and rpmsave predate the systemd stuff so I don't see the relevance, but then I'm also not seeing what was removed. I'd say any user facing configuration file should use either rpmnew or rpmsave method, rather than flat out obliterating the user config. -- Chris Murphy -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 08/03/2015 06:00 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
But what I'm missing is the connection to systemd.
The reasoning seems to be that anyone who 'supports' the changeover to systemd, which probably includes anyone who isn't explicitly outspoken against it, (hence the "deliberate systemd supporters") makes a change (and any change must, ipso fact, be "deliberate") that upsets Linda or "breaks" her highly customized and very non-standard version of Linux (which as far as I can make out she has because she seems to think that the mainstream version the rest of us use is somehow 'broken' or something, but since the case she presents doesn't make sense to me I can't be sure) that was "previously working" then it constitutes "deliberate sabotage" every bit as much as systemd itself is conspiracy[1] by some "establishment" (quite possibly Redhat) on their way to becoming every bit as much an Evil Empire as Microsoft. [1] The definition "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful" makes me wonder: the effort to convert from sysvinit to systemd is extremely well documented and supported, so its hardly 'secret', and while Linda may consider it harmful its certainly not unlawful, though the threats against the life of the developers are. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On Mon, Aug 3, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Anton Aylward <opensuse@antonaylward.com> wrote:
The reasoning seems to be that anyone who 'supports' the changeover to systemd, which probably includes anyone who isn't explicitly outspoken against it, (hence the "deliberate systemd supporters") makes a change (and any change must, ipso fact, be "deliberate")
Yes I noticed this, but it's sufficiently vague that I find it adds to verbosity, not the argument. So at this point I still don't see the systemd relevance.
that upsets Linda or "breaks" her highly customized and very non-standard version of Linux (which as far as I can make out she has because she seems to think that the mainstream version the rest of us use is somehow 'broken' or something, but since the case she presents doesn't make sense to me I can't be sure) that was "previously working" then it constitutes "deliberate sabotage" every bit as much as systemd itself is conspiracy[1] by some "establishment" (quite possibly Redhat) on their way to becoming every bit as much an Evil Empire as Microsoft.
I might just resign myself to not understanding in total. I am frustrating by lack of standardization in Linux distributions too. How many times have I gone on my own not so mini rant about booting non-standardization among distros and upstream GRUB, etc. etc. in the short time I've been on this list? If anything systemd helps standardization as it matures. But the relationship between sendmail configuration file and systemd, I'm lost. The sendmail update almost certainly should not be stepping on that file within a stable release of a versioned OS/distro. But that's the same with or without systemd. There's nothing about the systemd way of things that would care about comments in some configuration file: unless something about the old way is not merely deprecated, but compatibility breakage is happening, which again shouldn't happen in a stable release update.
[1] The definition "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful" makes me wonder: the effort to convert from sysvinit to systemd is extremely well documented and supported, so its hardly 'secret', and while Linda may consider it harmful its certainly not unlawful, though the threats against the life of the developers are.
I have not read in this thread any threats. But the community can't stand for such things if they occur. It's made even worse on e.g. Slashdot where they tolerate it even from "anonymous coward" postings. Even flippant and sympathetic to violence posts are when censorship (filtering) is absolutely appropriate, maybe even just an instant X days ban. -- Chris Murphy -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 2015-08-04 01:03, Chris Murphy wrote:
Yes I noticed this, but it's sufficiently vague that I find it adds to verbosity, not the argument. So at this point I still don't see the systemd relevance.
Because there is none.
The sendmail update almost certainly should not be stepping on that file within a stable release of a versioned OS/distro.
As has been explained, that particular file is not handled by the rpm process.
I have not read in this thread any threats.
Not in this one. It was on older threads about systemd, which is why the subject is touchy here. - -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" (Minas Tirith)) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iF4EAREIAAYFAlW/9FcACgkQja8UbcUWM1zbwwD/bEQ1Wui8jZsp1o0rgDieL9iK /TKYnyELWGfqDCXP3OEA/22Et6T9oyr7mxLukCIRcxNOG+Rm6e9Hzbje7pNa90KA =OeG+ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 08/03/2015 07:08 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:
On 2015-08-04 01:03, Chris Murphy wrote:
Yes I noticed this, but it's sufficiently vague that I find it adds to verbosity, not the argument. So at this point I still don't see the systemd relevance.
Because there is none.
+1 -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
On 08/03/2015 07:03 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
I am frustrating by lack of standardization in Linux distributions too. How many times have I gone on my own not so mini rant about booting non-standardization among distros and upstream GRUB, etc. etc. in the short time I've been on this list? If anything systemd helps standardization as it matures.
There is standardization in Linux. Its like the standardization in automobiles. Q: Apart from Ford what other can manufacturers have wheels that have 4 bolts/lugs rather than five? Q: what *American* car manufacturer uses metric bolts? and conversely Q: What European car manufacturer does NOT use metric bolts. Q: Of the vendors who mount car wheels with 5 bolts/lugs a) do they all use the same spacing? b) do they all have the same thread on the bolts/lugs? Q: Do automatic gear boxes have the same ratio spacing between gears as manual gear boxes? In fact .. Q: Do all automatic gear boxes, even from the same manufacturer, have the same spacing between ears? "Standardization"? PAH! -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
CHris -- ...and then Chris Murphy said... % ... % I have not read in this thread any threats. But the community can't % stand for such things if they occur. It's made even worse on e.g. % Slashdot where they tolerate it even from "anonymous coward" postings. % Even flippant and sympathetic to violence posts are when censorship % (filtering) is absolutely appropriate, maybe even just an instant X % days ban. *gasp* How dare you threaten me with banning like that?!? Oh, the humanity! You must now take yourself off of the list for a few days to atone for your antisocial and criminal behavior; I can't stand for that. % % -- % Chris Murphy HAND :-D -- David T-G See http://justpickone.org/davidtg/email/ See http://justpickone.org/davidtg/tofu.txt -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
CHris -- ...and then Chris Murphy said... % ... % I have not read in this thread any threats. But the community can't % stand for such things if they occur. It's made even worse on e.g. % Slashdot where they tolerate it even from "anonymous coward" postings. % Even flippant and sympathetic to violence posts are when censorship % (filtering) is absolutely appropriate, maybe even just an instant X % days ban. *gasp* How dare you threaten me with banning like that?!? Oh, the humanity! You must now take yourself off of the list for a few days to atone for your antisocial and criminal behavior; I can't stand for that. % % -- % Chris Murphy HAND :-D -- David T-G See http://justpickone.org/davidtg/email/ See http://justpickone.org/davidtg/tofu.txt -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
participants (4)
-
Anton Aylward -
Carlos E. R. -
Chris Murphy -
David T-G