[arch-general] SystemD poll

[Bigby James]

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 5:06 AM, Kevin Chadwick <ma1l1ists at yahoo.co.uk>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.