It's actually more like a business. Often times businesses do polls or statistical information gathering in order to better server their customers.

yeah, but an open online poll is not statistics gathering, because you don't have any way to ensure that you get a representative random sample. -- John K Pate http://jkpate.net/ The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 12:26 PM, phani wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 22:47:12 +0530, Calvin Morrison < mutantturkey@gmail.com> wrote:

It's actually more like a business. Often times businesses do polls or

...

statistical information gathering in order to better server their customers.

yeah, but in a business situation the customers actually pay the company good money for the product.

if we (arch linux users) managed to collect enough money to 'bribe' the devs into doing what we want, this poll might have a point. as it is, forget it.

-- phani.

I'd seriously consider giving a good bit for direct influence in how some choices are made in arch and i'm fairly sure others would to.... granted this leads to other problems ie the golden rule (like the man with the gold makes the rules)

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Nicholas MIller wrote:

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 12:26 PM, phani wrote:

...

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 22:47:12 +0530, Calvin Morrison < mutantturkey@gmail.com> wrote:

It's actually more like a business. Often times businesses do polls or

...

statistical information gathering in order to better server their customers.

yeah, but in a business situation the customers actually pay the company good money for the product.

if we (arch linux users) managed to collect enough money to 'bribe' the devs into doing what we want, this poll might have a point. as it is, forget it.

-- phani.

I'd seriously consider giving a good bit for direct influence in how some choices are made in arch and i'm fairly sure others would to.... granted this leads to other problems ie the golden rule (like the man with the gold makes the rules)

Replace "gold" with "willing and skills to help", and you're right. -- A: Because it obfuscates the reading. Q: Why is top posting so bad? For more information, please read: http://idallen.com/topposting.html ------------------------------------------- Denis A. Altoe Falqueto Linux user #524555 -------------------------------------------

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 6:59 PM, phani wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 23:10:38 +0530, Denis A. Altoé Falqueto wrote:

...

Replace "gold" with "willing and skills to help", and you're right.

what strikes me is that pretty much all who have the skills, do the work, and make the decisions in (almost) all the major distros came to the conclusion that systemd is the way to go: fedora, openSUSE, arch, (and debian, but they are stuck with supporting non-linux systems. (and if ubuntu is still 'linux' is another question.)

since i don't have those skills and have to depend on those who have,

For all the long winded opinions that have been expressed on this list I can say that from "direct experience" of running Fedora 16 with systemd from its release date, I have had around 9 months of solid problem-free running with several systems running that operating system - and never once had an issue with systemd of any kind - some are plain user machines and others are servers. OK so I only had 6 machines running it - three desktops and three laptops - so it is not statistically significant - but nevertheless the people who say there are major problems with systemd are actually talking without the basis of experience of many people who have been using it for real in earnest for quite some time already. I have no doubt whatsoever that the arch developer team will prepare the packages and configs to make the transition as seemless and painless as possible for the vast majority of arch users - of course there may be a few corner cases where an issue arises and then the problems will be investigated, diagnosed and fixed (usually via bug reports but sometimes via discussion on this list or the forums) - with notes added to lists and wikis so that anyone else hitting the same issue for a particular setup will have information available to reach a fix without too much heartache. We live in a dynamic and cutting edge world with the latest linux software - and as far as I remember it was already stated that initscripts would be kept parallel with systemd for anyone that wanted to retain their original system at least for a sensible transition period until the transition was complete and most systems were successfully converted onto systemd. To me that does not sound in the least unreasonable - -- mike c

On Thursday, August 16, 2012 10:56:25 PM phani wrote:

On Thu, 16 Aug 2012 22:47:12 +0530, Calvin Morrison

wrote:

...

It's actually more like a business. Often times businesses do polls or statistical information gathering in order to better server their customers.

yeah, but in a business situation the customers actually pay the company good money for the product.

if we (arch linux users) managed to collect enough money to 'bribe' the devs into doing what we want, this poll might have a point. as it is, forget it.

Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable. - Mark Twain There are lies, damned lies and statistics. -Mark Twain -- Jonathan Dlouhy ---------------------- "I'm not going to buy my kids an encyclopedia. Let them walk to school like I did." - Yogi Berra

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 05:23:37PM +0000, Fons Adriaensen wrote:

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 07:09:47PM +0200, Jelle van der Waa wrote:

...

Also you're poll doesn't give any arguments for or against the move, unedacted users should look into the benefits of moving to systemd.

They should look at both the pros and cons. One problem with this is that much of the the documentation (except the manpages) is available only on the author's blog. Which according to a previous comment will be 'opinion' rather than objective information. And IMHO even that is bit optimistic.

Very well said. More so if the person in question is known to blow his own trumpet...

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Ionut Biru wrote:

with or without this poll, we are continuing with our plan.

That's exactly what you should do, if your objective is to loose users; ignore them. Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:25 AM, Patrick Murphy wrote:

What alternative to systemd would you rather see?

systemd is the alternative, the standard has been initscripts for decades. Now that distributions are switching to systemd they are starting to see boot problems that didn't exist before. -- Felipe Contreras

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:44 AM, Alexandre Ferrando wrote:

And sysvinit didn't have those when it began? Come on.

I don't know, I probably wasn't born yet, and probably there weren't even computers before. But supposing there was something before, I'm sure the people that made the transition did it in a responsible manner trying hard not to break anything. That's nothing at all like systemd. Lennart Poettering is known for not caring if his software changes break stuff (there's always somebody else to blame), and I can probably point to dozens of problems that systemd has that initscripts doesn't (today). That's enough reason to hold on the move. Do *you* care at all about breaking the boot process of your users? Some people care to the extreme, like debian, some people doesn't seem to care much, like Fedora (and it shows), and there's all kinds places in the middle of the continuum. But what I find surprising is that I haven't heard any strong advantages that would warrant the potential (already realized) of breaking people's boot process.

Also, nobody is forcing you gun in hand, your life depending on it, to use systemd. Arch is going to use it by DEFAULT, if you don't like it, just install another init system and let everyone else do whatever they feel like doing.

But initscripts is going to be eventually unmantained, right? So what choice would I have? Also, nobody is forcing you to move to systemd *now* is there? You could just as easily move one year later, and in fact, it would be easier. -- Felipe Contreras

Could you give me a brief explanation as to why init scripts are better? I'm newish to Unix style operating systems On Aug 21, 2012 4:40 PM, "Felipe Contreras" wrote:

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:25 AM, Patrick Murphy wrote:

...

What alternative to systemd would you rather see?

systemd is the alternative, the standard has been initscripts for decades. Now that distributions are switching to systemd they are starting to see boot problems that didn't exist before.

-- Felipe Contreras

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote:

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Patrick Murphy wrote:

...

Could you give me a brief explanation as to why init scripts are better? I'm newish to Unix style operating systems

As I said; they are tried-and-true since *decades*, all the problems have been ironed out by slow small changes, so if somebody has problems they are probably hitting very few people.

Switching to systemd is not a small change, it's a revolutionary change, with the potential to break many people's boot (it has broken things in Fedora, and openSUSE, and it's happening in Arch Linux as well). So, a sensible person would wait until a sensible time to make the big switch (which is clearly not now).

"Bleeding edge" Look it up. Your assumption that the primary purpose of Arch is to be a long-term stable distro is misguided. Debian is over that way. Its not even like systemd is some new software that just appeared a month ago...

On 22.08.2012 02:10, Felipe Contreras wrote:

...

Could you give me a brief explanation as to why init scripts are better? I'm newish to Unix style operating systems As I said; they are tried-and-true since *decades*, all the problems have been ironed out by slow small changes, so if somebody has

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Patrick Murphy wrote: problems they are probably hitting very few people.

Switching to systemd is not a small change, it's a revolutionary change, with the potential to break many people's boot (it has broken things in Fedora, and openSUSE, and it's happening in Arch Linux as well). So, a sensible person would wait until a sensible time to make the big switch (which is clearly not now).

Arch is not sensible in the conservative sense. Being conservative here means waiting for others to make the software more stable. This is not really what Arch is about. We regularly move to software that is just-about-enough stable to be used. As far as I am concerned, systemd is at that point since I was able to convert my laptop to it without any problems at all. We also did this with Python 3 and regularly do it with all kinds of small packages We move at this rapid fashion because we are pretty much the snow plow of Linux distros. We sometimes break parts in our systems so that the ecosystem as a whole can improve more rapidly. If you can't get into that, Arch isn't for you. We get to use all the newest software with all its shiny new features and the trade-off is that sometimes things break. On the other hand, our breakages improve the quality of the software as a whole for everybody else. Some upstreams very much appreciate a large user base for new releases to iron out any errors quickly. Arch is also about practicality and pragmatism. If everybody moves to some software that is conceptually less simple than currently used software, we might move to use that as well. If we do not in such a case, it might mean we would have to maintain the old software that no ones cares about anymore ourselves which would actually complicate matters as suddenly that old software would essentially become and Arch project. Think about it like this: In Arch we try to find the best meta-simplicity. That is, you don't just need to consider conceptual or technical simplicity but also other fairly transparent factors that you might only be able to spot if you are more experienced such as burden-of-maintenance and community support.

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:48 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:

So if it works for you, it will surely work for *everybody* else. I have seen this argument so many times that I'm starting to worry about the rationality of Arch Linux users and developers.

Yes, it's good to be on the bleeding edge, but there's a difference between using the latest and greatest Linux kernel (stable one), glibc, gcc, or even python. But systemd is an entirely different beast, but apparently you are simply unable to understand how different it is.

Go ahead make it the default, and if people start hitting problems (everything points they will, and they will be *bad*), you would have such massive complains that the recent discussions in arch-general would seem mild in comparison.

Nobody likes to have their system totally broken with no easy solution in sight for no reason.

You know that all this jibber-jabber could be easily avoided if you just asked for help or opened bug reports, don't you? You know, just like when polite peopple try to solve their own problems and, when nothing else seems to work, ask for help in a friendly community, with a friendly attitude. That is what really mekes Arch so good and you seems to ignore so many times. You didn't contributted to any discussion at all. Just kept comming with the same points over and over, with an arrogant attitude that enfuriates more than anything. Please, refrain from just flaming. If you want help, ask for it. Otherwise, just shut up. -- A: Because it obfuscates the reading. Q: Why is top posting so bad? For more information, please read: http://idallen.com/topposting.html ------------------------------------------- Denis A. Altoe Falqueto Linux user #524555 -------------------------------------------

...

Please, refrain from just flaming. If you want help, ask for it. Otherwise, just shut up.

+1 -1

If anyone started the flaming it was those ignoring his main arguments and pointlessly responding. A recurring theme. He may have responded to those rediculous arguments in annoyance when he shouldn't have and which is easily done. Who knows maybe RedHat will use upstart after it has a more reliable interface added in a years time. It certainly wouldn't fragment the Linux and Unix communities and efforts so much. Be aware Felipe that very few developers have made any comment on the subject publically and the few that have shows devs on both sides of the argument. Users have supposedly swaded the argument through attrition but I don't believe this for one second. I don't know how devs thought that saying arguing against systemd serves us right in getting systemd would help quieten the list down but anyway. Tom has made his decision and at the end of the day unless someone takes up his initscript mantle or switches to another init like openrc and gets the packagers or users to cooperate then we are stuck maintaining our own startups or switching. -- _______________________________________________________________________ 'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface' (Doug McIlroy) _______________________________________________________________________

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 10:03:44PM -0300, Denis A. Alto?? Falqueto wrote:

You know that all this jibber-jabber could be easily avoided if you just asked for help or opened bug reports, don't you? You know, just like when polite peopple try to solve their own problems and, when nothing else seems to work, ask for help in a friendly community, with a friendly attitude. That is what really mekes Arch so good and you seems to ignore so many times.

He is trying to reason with the friendly community. He has a particular idea that he thinks is a good one. Open discourse is a healthy part of an open source community; all ideas are put forward and subjected to peer review and the mighty hammer of experiment. I know it can be frustrating when people disagree with you so vehemently but he's not trying to insult you and the nature of the Internet is such that I think you could stand to grow some thicker skin. If you think Filipe is wrong, explain it to him. If he ignores your explanations, then ignore him.

On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Bigby James wrote:

Having watched this thread (and the "Beware" thread) for some time, I can say without equivocation that Felipe is not trying to "reason" with anyone. He clearly doesn't understand the concepts he himself refers to (rules of evidence, burden of proof, logical fallacies) and is attempting to sound more knowledgeable than he is.

He has failed to present evidence for his own case while ignoring that of his detractors

Once again, I don't have the burden of proof.

and seems to think that while his single anecdotal case counts for something, all others contradicting it are worthless

You cannot prove a negative, no matter how many negative accounts you put forward, on the other hand you only need one positive account to prove a positive. You can have one million people claiming that they have never seen Congenital Generalized Hypertrichosis Terminalis, but all you need is one to prove that it does exist. This is very basic rationality. But you can ignore my anecdotal cases, you still have the burden of proof.

He attacks the credibility of those clearly more competent than himself,

I haven't.

And for the record: An ad hominem argument is 100% fallacious only when it serves to distract others from the subject at hand by making irrelevant claims.

No, that's called a red herring.

It is not fallacious to, for example, point out that Jenny McArthy opposes vaccines while singing the praises of Botox on the grounds that the former are "poisons."

It's not fallacious to point that out, it's fallacious to conclude that because of this, his arguments against vaccines are invalid. His arguments stand or fall on their own.

it serves as proof that the target is not a reliable source of information.

A bum on the street might not be a reliable source of information, but he/she might still be saying the truth. Cops wouldn't take their word at face value (or almost anyone for that matter), but if a bum says there was a crime, cops could still investigate to make sure that's the case.

but demanding the devs comply with his wishes.

I am not demanding anything. Since your whole mail is nothing but a bunch of ad hominem attacks, I'll simply stop replying to you. Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras

On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 03:34:00PM +0200, R??my Oudompheng wrote:

The cumulated amount of time spent on these endless discussions has now almost certainly get past the amount of time necessary to fix initscripts.

init scripts are irredeemable. The argument is more one of whether systemd is to be the redeemption.

On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Felipe Contreras < felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Bigby James wrote:

...

Having watched this thread (and the "Beware" thread) for some time, I can say without equivocation that Felipe is not trying to "reason" with anyone. He clearly doesn't understand the concepts he himself refers to (rules of evidence, burden of proof, logical fallacies) and is attempting to sound more knowledgeable than he is.

...

He has failed to present evidence for his own case while ignoring that of his detractors

Once again, I don't have the burden of proof.

...

and seems to think that while his single anecdotal case counts for something, all others contradicting it are worthless

You cannot prove a negative, no matter how many negative accounts you put forward, on the other hand you only need one positive account to prove a positive. You can have one million people claiming that they have never seen Congenital Generalized Hypertrichosis Terminalis, but all you need is one to prove that it does exist.

This is very basic rationality.

But you can ignore my anecdotal cases, you still have the burden of proof.

...

He attacks the credibility of those clearly more competent than himself,

I haven't.

...

And for the record: An ad hominem argument is 100% fallacious only when it serves to distract others from the subject at hand by making irrelevant claims.

No, that's called a red herring.

...

It is not fallacious to, for example, point out that Jenny McArthy opposes vaccines while singing the praises of Botox on the grounds that the former are "poisons."

It's not fallacious to point that out, it's fallacious to conclude that because of this, his arguments against vaccines are invalid. His arguments stand or fall on their own.

...

it serves as proof that the target is not a reliable source of information.

A bum on the street might not be a reliable source of information, but he/she might still be saying the truth. Cops wouldn't take their word at face value (or almost anyone for that matter), but if a bum says there was a crime, cops could still investigate to make sure that's the case.

...

but demanding the devs comply with his wishes.

I am not demanding anything.

Since your whole mail is nothing but a bunch of ad hominem attacks, I'll simply stop replying to you.

Cheers.

-- Felipe Contreras

This is pathetic. A single instance of a bug in a piece of software may prove it's existence, but it goes nowhere with regard to proving that it matters one bit. Every piece of complex software has bugs; those bugs won't be found if the software isn't tested, and since you're not willing to participate in that process you've no right to harass those who have. The burden of proof always lies with the one postulating, and proving a negative isn't being requested. You don't have any idea what you're talking about, and your attempts to be pedantic don't cover up this fact; you don't even seem to realize your own failure. The reason you're not a reliable source of information is because you've thus far failed to share the knowledge you continually claim to have (knowledge about the faults and failings of software you don't even try to use). You speculate, you throw around FUD and you act like you know better than the people actively developing, maintaining and using the software, and outright state that you don't need to familiarize yourself with the very thing you're detracting. You're a troll, you've got nothing worthwhile to say and, sadly, you grossly overestimate the weight your own voice carries. You've accomplished nothing with this little "crusade" but pissing people off--something that you seem eminently talented at, judging by other exchanges you've had. If you can't learn not to speak like a fool, then it's best to just remain silent.

Every piece of complex software has bugs; those bugs won't be found if the software isn't tested, and since you're not willing to participate in that process you've no right to harass those who have.

Not everyone wants complex software, just about any other init system let's you decide that. You could argue the Linux kernel is complex and it is but also extremely configurable to a point of being extremely simple, considering it's task. -- _______________________________________________________________________ 'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface' (Doug McIlroy) _______________________________________________________________________

2012/8/27 C Anthony Risinger :

On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:

...

[...]

A bum on the street might not be a reliable source of information, but he/she might still be saying the truth. Cops wouldn't take their word at face value (or almost anyone for that matter), but if a bum says there was a crime, cops could still investigate to make sure that's the case.

ehm ... and who the !@$# are you?

... down-trodden and cast to the curb carries no assurance that one is a quote-on-quote "bum" -- unfortunate things DO happen to good people you know -- and the ravages of mental illness are all too easy to dismiss when you're not among the ravaged!

really!? in a past life i'd probably say something to the effect of "you sir, are an arrant sack of shite -- a pitifully miserable sore spewing an egregious pus of arrogance and obstinance -- a first-class jerk-off!" ... well, or some variation ;-) thankfully i reject such dead-end language, and prefer to only think it aloud.

now let's review! per your allusions and my history, you've been here a whopping 10 days(!) and managed to elicit response from a growing list of ... uh ... "friends"? you're presence in other more "visible" lists i track fail to echo this recent(?) lack of restraint ... why is that?

just quit now guy, while you're only ~1,000 km behind -- i say this with little more than your own interests at heart -- communication needn't be so difficult.

--

C Anthony

Dude, it simply doesn't worth it. Troll is troll. Arch-general wasted already too much time with this guy.

On 08/26/12 at 10:17pm, Chris Evans wrote:

________________________________ From: rafael ff1 To: General Discussion about Arch Linux Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2012 11:49 PM Subject: Re: [arch-general] SystemD poll

2012/8/27 C Anthony Risinger :

...

On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:

...

[...]

A bum on the street might not be a reliable source of information, but he/she might still be saying the truth. Cops wouldn't take their word at face value (or almost anyone for that matter), but if a bum says there was a crime, cops could still investigate to make sure that's the case.

ehm ... and who the !@$# are you?

... down-trodden and cast to the curb carries no assurance that one is a quote-on-quote "bum" -- unfortunate things DO happen to good people you know -- and the ravages of mental illness are all too easy to dismiss when you're not among the ravaged!

really!? in a past life i'd probably say something to the effect of "you sir, are an arrant sack of shite -- a pitifully miserable sore spewing an egregious pus of arrogance and obstinance -- a first-class jerk-off!" ... well, or some variation ;-) thankfully i reject such dead-end language, and prefer to only think it aloud.

now let's review! per your allusions and my history, you've been here a whopping 10 days(!) and managed to elicit response from a growing list of ... uh ... "friends"? you're presence in other more "visible" lists i track fail to echo this recent(?) lack of restraint ... why is that?

just quit now guy, while you're only ~1,000 km behind -- i say this with little more than your own interests at heart -- communication needn't be so difficult.

--

C Anthony

...

Dude, it simply doesn't worth it. Troll is troll. Arch-general wasted already too much time with this guy.

I really don't get all the hoopla around this subject. Maybe since I'm relatively new here (3 months on arch) it's easier for me, then again maybe not. Everything is running fine for me and although different it's still linux and not hard to get used to new things. The whole reason I decided to move to arch is to get the latest software and the newest toys. With that is an unwritten agreement that things are gonna change, frequently and radically and maybe even not to some peoples liking. I respect the developers decision and if they say that moving to systemd is going to be better for them and for us then I will believe that. At least until I have personal proof that they don't have a clue what they are talking about. The move to systemd was easy and relatively painless. I have literally spent 10 times longer reading this back and forth god-aweful debate than I spent researching and then installing and configuring systemd. TRUTH

Scroll wrap, man.... scroll wrap. -- Curtis Shimamoto sugar.and.scruffy@gmail.com

On 22.08.2012 02:48, Felipe Contreras wrote:

...

On 22.08.2012 02:10, Felipe Contreras wrote:

...

...

Could you give me a brief explanation as to why init scripts are better? I'm newish to Unix style operating systems As I said; they are tried-and-true since *decades*, all the problems have been ironed out by slow small changes, so if somebody has

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Patrick Murphy wrote: problems they are probably hitting very few people.

Switching to systemd is not a small change, it's a revolutionary change, with the potential to break many people's boot (it has broken things in Fedora, and openSUSE, and it's happening in Arch Linux as well). So, a sensible person would wait until a sensible time to make the big switch (which is clearly not now).

Arch is not sensible in the conservative sense. Being conservative here means waiting for others to make the software more stable. This is not really what Arch is about. We regularly move to software that is just-about-enough stable to be used. As far as I am concerned, systemd is at that point since I was able to convert my laptop to it without any problems at all. So if it works for you, it will surely work for *everybody* else. I have seen this argument so many times that I'm starting to worry about

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:32 AM, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote: the rationality of Arch Linux users and developers.

I said "As far as I am concerned, systemd is at that point since I was able to convert my laptop to it without any problems at all." You say I somehow said something along the lines of "As far as I am concerned, systemd is at that point since I was able to convert my laptop to it without any problems at all so it will surely work for *everybody* else." I suppose you are mostly trolling at this point anyway but at least don't make it so obvious!

Yes, it's good to be on the bleeding edge, but there's a difference between using the latest and greatest Linux kernel (stable one), glibc, gcc, or even python. But systemd is an entirely different beast, but apparently you are simply unable to understand how different it is.

Go ahead make it the default, and if people start hitting problems (everything points they will, and they will be *bad*), you would have such massive complains that the recent discussions in arch-general would seem mild in comparison.

Well, we have a bug tracker for that. Go ahead and report some bugs.

Nobody likes to have their system totally broken with no easy solution in sight for no reason.

Cheers.

Obviously not.

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 4:23 AM, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:

On 22.08.2012 02:48, Felipe Contreras wrote:

...

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:32 AM, Sven-Hendrik Haase wrote:

...

On 22.08.2012 02:10, Felipe Contreras wrote:

...

...

...

...

Switching to systemd is not a small change, it's a revolutionary change, with the potential to break many people's boot (it has broken things in Fedora, and openSUSE, and it's happening in Arch Linux as well). So, a sensible person would wait until a sensible time to make the big switch (which is clearly not now).

Arch is not sensible in the conservative sense. Being conservative here means waiting for others to make the software more stable. This is not really what Arch is about. We regularly move to software that is just-about-enough stable to be used. As far as I am concerned, systemd is at that point since I was able to convert my laptop to it without any problems at all.

So if it works for you, it will surely work for *everybody* else. I have seen this argument so many times that I'm starting to worry about the rationality of Arch Linux users and developers.

I said "As far as I am concerned, systemd is at that point since I was able to convert my laptop to it without any problems at all."

In other words: "I was able to convert my laptop to systemd without any problems" Therefore: "systemd is stable enough to be used"

You say I somehow said something along the lines of "As far as I am concerned, systemd is at that point since I was able to convert my laptop to it without any problems at all so it will surely work for *everybody* else."

You didn't say systemd is at the point where "*I* am able to use it", you implied that systemd is at the point where it is stable enough to be used (in general). * "systemd is at that point" * "We regularly move to software that is just-about-enough stable to be used." If this is not what you intended to say, then it seems like a red herring. Can we then agree then that you don't *know* if systemd is stable enough to be used (in general, not only by you)? Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Brandon Watkins wrote:

Umm, the fact thats its been the default init system in several popular distros already? Fedora 15+ ,

In Fedora they didn't just went from sysv style scripts to full blown systemd with all their features. They did it gradually in order to minimize the potential problems. In fact, they still haven't fully finished the conversion: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SysVtoSystemd (60% done) And yet they hit tons of bugs, and they still have a lot of them: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?query_format=advanced&order=Importance&bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&component=systemd&classification=Fedora I moved away from Fedora in part because systemd made my system not boot 70% of the time.

Opensuse 12.1

In OpenSUSE as well the move was supposed to happen before 12.1, but they constantly hit issues, and they kept delaying it. And afterwards they still have a lot of issues: https://bugzilla.novell.com/buglist.cgi?query_format=specific&order=relevance+desc&bug_status=__open__&product=&content=systemd

don't know why you keep hanging onto this idea that systemd is "untested" or "unproven", because it isn't.

I never said such a thing. Can you please read what I say? There's a difference between something being "tested" (there's different degrees of testing, and the results, and the degrees of certainty in the results), and something being "stable enough to be used" (there's different degrees of certainty). Apparently there's no choice of words that can transmit what I am actually trying to say to you. Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras

Felipe--if I may address you by your first name--in case you're confused about why no one will listen to your arguments, let me try to explain; it may reduce your frustration. You made the following two statements without any evidence or even any suggestion that you care about evidence:

But supposing there was something before, I'm sure the people that made the transition did it in a responsible manner trying hard not to break anything. ... I can probably point to dozens of problems that systemd has that initscripts doesn't (today). That's enough reason to hold on the move.

Additionally, your tendency to overgeneralize leads to such FUD as:

What's the purpose of a distro that doesn't even work?

Your only rational arguments have been nitpicks such as your recent response to Sven-Hendrik Haase, which I will not quote here. So, you are aggravating those who will bother to respond to you, but not really providing compelling arguments for those who are looking for a helpful discussion. I stayed out of this thread until I just couldn't take any more of your nonsense. At least, though, no one can accuse you of straying from the topic, since this entire thread began with a huge steaming pile of FUD- loaded question-begging tripe. I would say I don't mean to pick on you, but you're really annoying, and I wish you would stop posting until you have something to contribute to the discussion, or at the very, very least, point out some problem with systemd that stems from systemd itself and not a perceived problem that exists only because it is different than what you have right now. --Andrew Hills

On 23/08/2012 4:14 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote: [snip]

Is systemd ready? Where is the evidence?

https://www.archlinux.de/?page=PackageStatistics shows that about 14% of arch users who are using pkgstat have systemd installed. It is not default and not depended on by anything, so that means a sizable portion of the community has tried it. The bug tracker isn't being flooded with critical bugs against it so it must work for the majority of archers who are using it. Is that evidence? If not, what would constitute evidence? [snip]

On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Stephen E. Baker wrote:

On 23/08/2012 4:14 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote: [snip]

...

Is systemd ready? Where is the evidence?

https://www.archlinux.de/?page=PackageStatistics shows that about 14% of arch users who are using pkgstat have systemd installed. It is not default and not depended on by anything, so that means a sizable portion of the community has tried it. The bug tracker isn't being flooded with critical bugs against it so it must work for the majority of archers who are using it.

Not exactly. People might have installed it and never tried it (not very likely); or tried it, found problems, and disabled it (not so unlikely) (I did that). So it's not correct to say that it "must" work for the majority of users who are using it, but rather that it *probably* works for the majority of users who have tried it. That being said I see many problems in arch-general that are not reported in bugzilla, so I wouldn't trust bugzilla statistics blindly. And finally, the 14% that have tried it are probably early adopters, and they are not the same as the rest of the 86% of the user-base. Maybe they had problems, but the managed to solve them themselves. Maybe the rest of the 86% won't be so lucky.

Is that evidence? If not, what would constitute evidence?

That's evidence all right, but I would consider it weak evidence. Stronger evidence would be that RHEL has adopted it, or that the bug count in Fedora and openSUSE are low (they aren't), or that at least 25% of Arch Linux users have tried it. Any of those would persuade me. But that was only one of my questions, the other one would be: What are the benefits vs. advantages of systemd? It would be nice of such analysis was made publicly, but if the previous question is answered (systemd is ready), this question is not as important -- the most important thing is not to break user experience (or have a very good reason to risk doing that). Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras

Felipe Contreras [2012.08.23 2214 +0200]:

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:02 PM, Andrew Hills wrote:

...

Felipe--if I may address you by your first name--in case you're confused about why no one will listen to your arguments, let me try to explain; it may reduce your frustration. You made the following two statements without any evidence or even any suggestion that you care about evidence:

But here's the thing: I am not the one that needs to make a claim; it's other people that make the claim that systemd is ready to be the default for Arch Linux. Where is the evidence? There is no evidence... All the evidence provided so far is derived from personal experience, mostly in the form of "It works for me", or "A lot of users have already switched without problems" (for which there is no direct evidence either, only personal experience).

So you see, I don't need to prove anything, I simply need to point out the fact that there's no evidence for the aforementioned claim. Of course, I could try to provide evidence to further advance my argument, and provided a few data-points, but I don't *need* to. This is the basic of rationality; the one that makes the claim has the burden of proof.

Is systemd ready? Where is the evidence?

...

...

But supposing there was something before, I'm sure the people that made the transition did it in a responsible manner trying hard not to break anything. ... I can probably point to dozens of problems that systemd has that initscripts doesn't (today). That's enough reason to hold on the move.

Notice that I said "probably". Again, I don't *need* to provide any evidence because I'm not making the claim that systemd has problems, or that it's not ready, I am simply asking for evidence that it is.

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. - Norbert

...

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.

Not really, the Justice system fails perhaps more than it works. All of these responses are actually just diluting and ignoring the points he has raised and responding to responses of an inflammatory kind. The 14% using argument is very general where as he was being more specific. If you think users are going to catch the worst bugs you are severely mistaken. -- _______________________________________________________________________ 'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface' (Doug McIlroy) _______________________________________________________________________

Despite that, no serious (IMHO) bugs or architectural issues have been found (there has of course been plenty of irrelevant complaints, but those I ignore).

http://osvdb.org/search?search%5Bvuln_title%5D=systemd&search%5Btext_type%5D=alltext Two local root exploits this year. So if your browser has a bug, systemd would have allowed priveledge escalation and with a default kernel your bios to be overwritten. Note these bugs are very low hanging fruit security wise and shouldn't have happened at all. We understand your decision has been made with reasonable reasons for doing so (saved effort) and that your relevancy gauge is out of sync with ours and we have no idea how many devs. It would still be good if users were aware of the facts without diluting them with impotent shootdowns, not that code correctness, platform independence or security ever has a huge impact on the average users decision. -- _______________________________________________________________________ 'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface' (Doug McIlroy) _______________________________________________________________________

...

http://osvdb.org/search?search%5Bvuln_title%5D=systemd&search%5Btext_type%5D=alltext

...

Two local root exploits this year. So if your browser has a bug, systemd would have allowed priveledge escalation

Notice that these bugs were in logind (the console kit replacement) and not in the init daemon. They were also fixed more than 8 months ago.

But they were written by the same devs and what's more silently fixed meaning criminals may notice whilst distros remain vulnerable.

No one claimed that systemd never had any bugs. It even has bugs now, like all software.

That's dangerous reasoning. It has more bugs than a lot of software which isn't a great start ;-) Like I've said before and then some people say there is no argument against systemd and now no argument against moving to systemd right now whilst calling it FUD and trolling. You seem to have forgotten the context which was 'is systemd ready'. Redhat don't think so and a Redhat employee has said it is complicated to understand systemd's source code and so there will be major security bugs found and more so than for systems without systemd. You can argue that lots of other programs run by init scripts may have severe bugs but those are more often than not simple programs and easily avoided or swapped by those who wish to and many of which will never have had such severe and simple symlink races. Hopefully the devs just missed that security page but that's probably wishful thinking. How many people run monit which you can choose to run easily as any user you like with almost zero priviledges. Will you get such configurability from systemd. Does everyone need all these functions on every system such as their desktop. No, so it must be badly designed.

...

We understand your decision has been made with reasonable reasons for doing so (saved effort)

For the record: I believe systemd is a technically better solution in all ways that matter, so this move is not (purely) motivated by laziness. I'd appreciate if you do not misrepresent me.

I never said laziness and saved effort is a good reason, if only systemd was more considerate and could ever be a unified solution as it promised. You've said as Lennart has that you only care about Linux and that's just plain wrong in my book considering all that BSD gives Linux and anyone else whilst hoping but not demanding a return. A funny position from what is supposed to be one of the most BSD like Linux. You haven't said directly but I assume then you mean root exploits don't matter either. I hope I have not annoyed you to much. I hope none of this is taken personally. I am really not trying to annoy you and nearly deleted some of this. I'm just being forthcoming. I really will shut up now because I think we have both gone past caring and have put a note on my mail client to remind me to ignore this *#!t ;-). -- _______________________________________________________________________ 'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface' (Doug McIlroy) _______________________________________________________________________

On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 2:47 AM, Norbert Zeh wrote:

Felipe Contreras [2012.08.23 2214 +0200]:

...

Notice that I said "probably". Again, I don't *need* to provide any evidence because I'm not making the claim that systemd has problems, or that it's not ready, I am simply asking for evidence that it is.

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.

No, I never said anything like that. All I said is that the one that makes the claim has the burden of proof. If you don't want to carry your burden, then we can ignore the claim, and the discussion continues. Q: Is systemd ready? A: We don't know. All right. The discussion would continue along the lines of: does it have benefits that outweigh the _potential_ breakage that it might cause? Well, the developers have already said they are not going to provide an analysis of the benefits vs. disadvantages. So we just have to trust them. IOW; blindly submit to authority. And/or chase random comments in blog posts and mailing lists to see what individual developers argue. So it's all very vague. If there are no problems when systemd is made the default, then everything would be fine. But if shit hits the fan... well, the fact there was no public analysis, nor evidence that systemd was actually ready, is going to upset the users that hit these problems. But hey, it's much easier to just ignore that fact and hope everything will be fine. But I presume you are not even willing to forgo that claim. You are probably arguing for the sake of arguing, show that I'm stupid, or something like that.

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.

Perhaps it is in the latter category, but the problem is that this is one of the essential parts of the system. You wouldn't want Arch Linux developers to move from Linux to HURD, or glibc to uclibc, or any other radical move that has a potential to break *everything*. Would you? Not all software has the same importance in the system.

It works for a large number of people (the majority?),

Where is the evidence of that claim? Or is that just an assumption? But I will grant that for the sake of argument. Let's suppose that it works for the majority of people: 60% of them, or lets be more generous: 90%. What would be the effects on the rest (e.g. 10%)? The system would not boot. Somebody runs 'pacman -Syu', and in the next boot, the system just stops... that would be upsetting, wouldn't it? Simply having that as a possibility would warrant a little extra care. Wouldn't it?

it works flawlessly for me so far.

You are a single data-point. Who cares if it works for you?

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.

No. Let me try to explain (yet again) the concept of burden of proof. Suppose for some reason the majority of scientists believe in the theory of the Big Bang. And then I come along and wonder... where is the evidence? Well, if the Big Bang theory has merits, there would be tons of evidence, and any decent scientist that believes in this theory would gladly point me towards that evidence. But what happens if scientists tell me: "no, we already believe in this theory, so now *you* have the burden of proof if you want to discredit it"; that would be worrying. I don't want to discredit it: I'm simply a rational person that is looking for the evidence, and as any rational person, I would not take the scientists words for an answer (fallacy of authority), or accept the status quo (appeal to tradition). So you see, status quo doesn't make the burden of proof shift into another direction. There was a time when initscripts was all there was, and now the choice is systemd. Well, where is the rationale behind this? Is systemd ready? This is a perfectly valid question, and if you don't have the evidence, you can simply say "We don't know", and that's a perfectly valid answer. But then there would be other questions. So I'm sorry, but no; you cannot simply shift the burden of proof. Notice that there's a difference between a) systemd is ready, b) systemd is *not* ready, c) we don't know if systemd is ready or not. Both a) and b) would need evidence to be substantiated, and the default position is c). If nobody provides evidence either way, the only rational stance is c). Hopefully that's clear enough.

In law, the default assumption is that the accused is innocent and any claim to the contrary needs to be proven.

No. The default assumption is that the accused is "not guilty". And notice that there's a difference between "not guilty" and innocent; innocence can only be proven with evidence, but you don't need to prove you are innocent, all you need to do is remain the position of "not guilty" by showing the evidence for guilt is not valid. http://www.oregoncriminalattorney.com/Criminal-Defense-Overview/Innocent-V-N...

You seem to assume that the default assumption is that the software is broken

No. The default position is that we don't know if the software is broken or not. This is fine for most of the software, as if it's broken, the user will simply avoid it after installing it. But when making it a hard selection: for example: you cannot use KDE, only GNOME, then hopefully you have evidence that GNOME is not broken (and incidentally that supporting KDE would be hard work, but that's a bit beyond the analogy). Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras

On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:

No, I never said anything like that. All I said is [...]

[...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...] [...]

*yaaawn* ... ... are we done? you guys are really boring me to death here -- interest level is pitifully low. yawn. if you want to see a boot up process that uses daemontools, or runit, or monit or {insert-here} ... then get on it chief! alas, i expect there are good reasons said tools were never used as such. but hey! that doesn't mean you can't try it anyway. i try stuff all the time and fail, sometimes i fail really fckn hard. and don't give me any of that "i have no time" bull!@#$! none of us have "time"! "Yes, of course. Who has time? Who has time? But then if we never *take* time, how can we have time?" - The Merovingian let's cut to the chase here: there is no reason to get all bent out of shape ... no one cares (well not enough to do anything useful anyway). frankly, i DGAF about your wah-wah problems, but i give you points for a vivid imagination. it's clear that 99% of the free population feels {insert-previous-sentence}. so buck up, do something useful, or find another outlet ... puh-puh-please? -- C Anthony

On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 05:56:32AM -0600, Anthony ''Ishpeck'' Tedjamulia wrote:

On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 11:24:31PM -0500, C Anthony Risinger wrote:

...

so buck up, do something useful, or find another outlet ... puh-puh-please?

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking for here.

When I have "time" I do tinker with making daemontools more accessible. If I ever get it polished to the point of making a package out of it, I may submit it to the AUR -- If there is sufficient interest -- which, I can only discover by getting the idea in peoples' heads and weighing their reaction.

There is already a package for daemontools in the AUR with a decent amount of votes. I am fairly interested in daemontools, but currently don't want to tinker with any init till I am forced to stop using initscripts :P Maybe you can test the AUR package and see if works as good as your own setup, and maybe you can contribute to that package if you ever find the time to do so.

Suppose for some reason the majority of scientists believe in the theory of the Big Bang. And then I come along and wonder... where is the evidence? Well, if the Big Bang theory has merits, there would be tons of evidence, and any decent scientist that believes in this theory would gladly point me towards that evidence. But what happens if scientists tell me: "no, we already believe in this theory, so now *you* have the burden of proof if you want to discredit it"; that would be worrying. I don't want to discredit it: I'm simply a rational person that is looking for the evidence, and as any rational person, I would not take the scientists words for an answer (fallacy of authority), or accept the status quo (appeal to tradition).

In fact in most cases that was exactly what happened with some scientists and teachers saying the Big Bang was all but proven until fairly recently the number questioning and the evidence built up against it. To me it has been obvious that the Big Bang was bullshit for over a decade because, where did the dust come from and what came to make the dust and what made that. I didn't need to know and couldn't afford the time to find out about quantum mechanics but in fact knowledge can blind you as much as it clears the way. Of course the Big Bang theory is morphing with one option being many Big Bang's and that it was a point in history and not the beginning which is perfectly plausible and systemd may morph sufficiently for more users too, in time. I care little though (except any consequences) and don't hold a great deal of hope in that regard because systemd tells us what to do and not us telling systemd what to do and so it can never fit everyone's needs as init scripts can, as to do so, it wouldn't be systemd any more. -- _______________________________________________________________________ 'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface' (Doug McIlroy) _______________________________________________________________________

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 5:06 AM, Kevin Chadwick wrote:

...

Suppose for some reason the majority of scientists believe in the theory of the Big Bang. And then I come along and wonder... where is the evidence? Well, if the Big Bang theory has merits, there would be tons of evidence, and any decent scientist that believes in this theory would gladly point me towards that evidence. But what happens if scientists tell me: "no, we already believe in this theory, so now *you* have the burden of proof if you want to discredit it"; that would be worrying. I don't want to discredit it: I'm simply a rational person that is looking for the evidence, and as any rational person, I would not take the scientists words for an answer (fallacy of authority), or accept the status quo (appeal to tradition).

In fact in most cases that was exactly what happened with some scientists and teachers saying the Big Bang was all but proven until fairly recently the number questioning and the evidence built up against it. To me it has been obvious that the Big Bang was bullshit for over a decade because, where did the dust come from and what came to make the dust and what made that. I didn't need to know and couldn't afford the time to find out about quantum mechanics but in fact knowledge can blind you as much as it clears the way.

Of course the Big Bang theory is morphing with one option being many Big Bang's and that it was a point in history and not the beginning which is perfectly plausible and systemd may morph sufficiently for more users too, in time. I care little though (except any consequences) and don't hold a great deal of hope in that regard because systemd tells us what to do and not us telling systemd what to do and so it can never fit everyone's needs as init scripts can, as to do so, it wouldn't be systemd any more.

-- _______________________________________________________________________

'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface'

(Doug McIlroy) _______________________________________________________________________

Wow, this is way off base. Anyway, you may also wish to look into the argument from ignorance; the fact that you fail to understand something doesn't make it untrue. I have to admit I'd be interested to know who you get information on theoretical physics from, since you seem to think theoretical physicists aren't reliable authorities on the subject. I'm also getting tired of seeing folks completely misunderstand how the "burden of proof" works (hint: It always lies with the claimant). Back on track: You and I have different standards for complexity. A few dozen lines of code accomplishing a multi-faceted task can easily be considered complex. systemd can be just as modular as you like, if you learn your way around it. Many of the units installed with the package on Arch are packaged upstream, and can be done away with by the user if not needed.

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 11:34:28AM -0400, Brandon Watkins wrote:

...

Can we then agree then that you don't *know* if systemd is stable enough to be used (in general, not only by you)?

...

Felipe Contreras

Umm, the fact thats its been the default init system in several popular distros already? Fedora 15+ , Opensuse 12.1 , Mageia 2, Mandriva 2011... I don't know why you keep hanging onto this idea that systemd is "untested"

Seems to me like the argument is that it's untested in /this/ distro. Doesn't matter how well it works for Fedora. Arch isn't Fedora so that doesn't necessarily apply.

On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Felipe Contreras wrote:

On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 1:48 AM, Patrick Murphy wrote:

...

Could you give me a brief explanation as to why init scripts are better? I'm newish to Unix style operating systems

As I said; they are tried-and-true since *decades*, all the problems have been ironed out by slow small changes, so if somebody has problems they are probably hitting very few people.

Switching to systemd is not a small change, it's a revolutionary change, with the potential to break many people's boot (it has broken things in Fedora, and openSUSE, and it's happening in Arch Linux as well). So, a sensible person would wait until a sensible time to make the big switch (which is clearly not now).

Arch initscripts don't have "decades" of history. At most, one decade (Arch celebrated 10 years some months ago). It was tailor made for Arch and has been extremely streched over the years to do very good things, but it clearly shows its age. -- A: Because it obfuscates the reading. Q: Why is top posting so bad? For more information, please read: http://idallen.com/topposting.html ------------------------------------------- Denis A. Altoe Falqueto Linux user #524555 -------------------------------------------

On 22 Aug 2012 07:22, "Felipe Contreras" wrote:

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Ionut Biru wrote:

...

with or without this poll, we are continuing with our plan.

That's exactly what you should do, if your objective is to loose users; ignore them.

Cheers.

-- Felipe Contreras

Yes, because losing users would hurt the distro. Please, just go use something else.

On 17 Aug 2012 02:05, "David C. Rankin" wrote:

In all of the discussion about systemd, all anyone should care about is:

(1) Does systemd provide *needed* additional capabilities that are not currently available;

(2) What are they?

(3) What are the disadvantages of the switch?

(4) Do the advantages significantly outweigh the disadvantages, taking into consideration the time, talent and energy required to implement the change (for both the developers and end-users)?

1-3 have already been discussed, and number 4 has an obvious answer for the only person that matters, the one doing the work. I'm not sure why the time, talent, and energy of the end-user is even a factor. If it was we wouldn't be using any new software at all...

On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Heiko Baums wrote:

Am Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:20:47 +0100 schrieb mike cloaked :

...

Isn't it interesting that the vote is currently 81% support for arch to switch to systemd (even with the misspelling in the poll), and only 19% against! Looks like at least from the perspective of this poll (even with only 237 votes in total which just shows the low level of interest in the poll given that the arch community must be many times that number of users) that the proposal that the devs made is overwhelmingly being supported by the community despite all the fuss that appeared in this mailing list!

And what does this poll say? Exactly nothing. Do you know how many people have voted how many times? You only need one systemd fanboy with a few minutes spare time to get such a result.

A poll would only make sense if it's ensured that everybody can vote exactly once.

True but see my posting in another thread in this mailing list today pointing to some rather more useful stats. -- mike c

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 8:14 PM, Kevin Chadwick wrote:

Would we have DNSCurve without DNSSEC, will DNSSEC actually ever get fixed having got it out sooner to do so or would it have died and not been replaced. Would we have DNSSEC with ECC already, solving a large chunk of the issues. Perhaps pertinent questions for Linux init?

Yes, why not bring up yet another nonsensical slightly related example....