On Thursday 23 Aug 2012 21:47:14 Norbert Zeh wrote:
I tried to keep my mouth shut but can't resist to reply here because I simply don't understand how you think the world works. Do you want to see proof that every piece of open-source software is ready to be used? That's ridiculous. Open-source software is being developed. People think it may be interesting. They try it. It doesn't work, they forget about it. It does work, they use it. It does work, except for some issues here and there, people use it and provide bug reports in the hope the bugs will be fixed. Even though I'm not a systemd fanboy and probably would have been equally happy continuing with init scripts for a while, my general impression is that systemd is in the latter category. It works for a large number of people (the majority?), it works flawlessly for me so far. Yet, here you are raising doubts about systemd being ready to be used. That puts *you* in a position to explain why you think there are serious reasons why systemd should not be adopted. Your confusion stems from a misunderstanding of what the default is. In law, the default assumption is that the accused is innocent and any claim to the contrary needs to be proven. You seem to assume that the default assumption is that the software is broken, and it needs to be proven that it works. In reality it works the other way around, and I think it's the only model that works because nobody would develop and distribute software *for free* if they also had to prove that it works. Ironing out the glitches that still exist in certain pieces of software through early adoption, testing, and reporting of bugs upstream is exactly the role bleeding edge distributions such as arch play in the open-source ecosystem.
Then again, much of this has been said a bit differently before. So I'm not sure you'll follow the argument.
Bravo! This was well said. Paul