Todd Rme wrote:
It is also "the crowd that is willing to do the work and the crowd that isn't". That is the biggest sticking point for people who don't oppose systemd.
No, in personal experience, it is those who monopolize the work and are allowed to do the work vs. those who are shut out. Case in point. I had lots of idea for perl, but they didn't want to improve it in any way I suggested -- even bug fixed I reported often were not fixed for 2-3 releases later, making my reporting them pointless. There was nothing I could suggest that they would approve -- even when they said, well no one that can do the job wants to, so it's not getting done. I responded, that if the job was done and presented to them, then wouldn't that mean that someone who could do the job did want to see it done. I was told I wouldn't be allowed to contribute. Things escalated to the point that they couldn't hear anything I said without it being "universally offensive" (which was a crock). I may be disagreeable at times, but I usually try to stick to the issues unless someone is clearly being a roadblock and issuing false statement, which I usually point out. I have been known as someone who doesn't give into bullies, but doesn't bully others. In fact that's one of my shortfalls. I'd be content with driving the enemy back -- while most of those on the other side of an issue are often not content until they have eliminated any capacity to respond. More than once I've been accused of things I didn't do -- one person accused me of having threatened them, so I was excused from their group for over a year. When I found out the reason why, I demanded they bring forth the threatening email or communication. They seemed to have misplaced it -- and I was accepted back on a trial basis...which was another crock -- I'd been falsely accused and they let me back on with a trial basis?! There have been other software projects where the same thing came up -- and almost universally, it's not that people want contributors, but gofers and people they can direct. It a relatively small group of inside people that are *allowed* to contribute. I submitted contributions to fix problems I found. AFAIK, nearly all of them were thrown on the floor, though I found tidbits of my coding styles in more than one related counter solution. I've been told that I wouldn't be allowed to implement some compatibility fixes I outlined, because "they" had decided the way it would be, and they were the "doer", and I was not. Case closed.
So please forgive our continued attempts to ask for choice. Freedom of choice, a basic freedom in a free society is one of those things that much constantly be fought for -- and it doesn't come overnight and isn't lost in 1 battle or not (though the 1984-authoritarians would love to perpetuate the myth that there can never be change).
People who fought for choice made an effort to make choice possible. Just talking about choice doesn't change anything when no one is willing to put in the effort to implement choice.
I've submitted my share of patches and solutions only to have them dropped on the floor. I get tired of trying to fix things only to be given crap in return. I did get in the option to re-enable wide links on systems with unix extensions in samba. I called the option what it was -- a very descriptive "client managed wide links = [no]/yes" -- because it allowed client's of a samba server who had read-write access to an area to create symlinks pointing anywhere on the system. The people who wanted this were ones who ALREADY let their clients log onto the server using their Samba credentials. So these people ALREADY had access. The option had been disabled when someone complained about the ability to give the option for clients to control symlinks... they made a big stink about it. Jeremy felt burned. When he finally approved the patch (and documentation), he changed the option name to "allow insecure wide links", which is totally bogus in environment where people already had server access -- and that's one of the few projects I've gotten any patches accepted with the name corrupted and meaningless.
Projects voluntarily chose to join systemd because they thought it would benefit their project. Some did... some didn't -- those that didn't weren't given a choice...they were absorbed.
Please name any project that was forced to become part of the systemd umbrella against its developers' wishes
I don't know particulars since by the time the developers were absorbed, they were just lying back and enjoying it. I know of projects that were shut out because they didn't control the users enough and know of corruptions of other projects that had a purpose and were repurposed for systemd usage -- eliminating or wiping out their original intended functions.
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.
I had 90% of the features I wanted, and the ability to implement ones I didn't have. With systemd, I won't have that ability, because there will be no place for alternatives.
Again, this isn't about what you find useful, it is about what the developers of major open-source projects find useful. They are the ones who decide whether relying on a particular piece of software -- systemd, cups, x11, wayland, llvm -- provides benefits to their project or not. And that depends to a large degree on whether the software provides features that the project developers think their project will benefit from.
Show me someone who would find going without syslogging, powermanagement device management, log cleaning, to name a few, "beneficial" to their users. They either take systemd or do without most services, because alternatives are shut out.
Again, there is a simple solution to this: provide an alternative that projects actually want to use. All this talk about whether alternatives should exist or not will not accomplish anything.
If I was paid full time to develop a such a project. LP doesn't live off air and has been getting corporate funding for some time. He's been working on it for about 5 years. You think I'm going to come up with something by myself in a few months?
Unless the people who oppose systemd are willing to put in the work to actually provide alternatives, projects will continue to use systemd.
There are alternatives ALREADY THERE. They are being locked out. They don't have to be provided. They are ready today. They are not welcome. Contributing software is more about "permission" than doing the work. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org