On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Tom Gundersen <teg@jklm.no> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't have that machine available at the moment, but I don't see how such an issue could have been fixed given the lack of interest from Lennart in that G+ post.
Without the insults, this would have been picked up on and sorted out a long time ago. At least based on my experience.
That's a loss for systemd, not for me. And I didn't insult anybody, Lennart did, so it's not my fault.
I do read and write C everyday for probably for more than 10 years now, yet I do have trouble reading systemd's code, but that's not important, what is important is that in order to test my modifications (to add debugging for example), I would need to *recompile*.
I'm aware that you are a professional, that's why I find your claims about the difficulty of understanding/recompiling... odd. By contrast, my C skills/experience are virtually nonexistent, and yet I have had no problems understanding/debugging/recompiling/patching the systemd code.
It's not my claims, it's a fact; compiling is more complicated than not-compiling (one step less), and you need a compiler, and linker (and in some systems development packages), and sometimes deploying the binaries. With scripting you don't need any of that; after you are done editing the text (which you have to do regardless), you are done.
Well, I see absolutely no evidence of such an analysis, so consider me a skeptic.
That's ok. We are not in the PR business, we are not selling anything.
You are selling a distribution. When Arch Linux stops giving the users what they want, the users will go for a different distribution. That's how distributions die; when something better is on the market for most of their users. Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras