Regardless, it would probably be useful to contact the people from the Debian project who were interested in forking it. It's likely Gentoo would end up using a fair amount of their work at some point. On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 6:18 AM, Sid S wrote: > The reason this question is so hard to answer is because it is not a > technical question, it is a moral and ethical one. The links presented > start to approach the issue being discussed in this light but do not > entirely accept the right question. I suspect this is because it seems > rather absurd. > > We shall analyze some popular responses in this light. > > Systemd is easy to work around! > http://www.vitavonni.de/blog/201410/2014102101-avoiding-systemd.html > except, > https://lobste.rs/s/y5skqt/avoiding_systemd_isn_t_hard/comments/eayjn3#c_eayjn3 > but http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html gives some > decent counterpoints, > which http://lwn.net/Articles/619992/ either supports or is ambivalent > about. > > They all basically boil down to "someone is doing the work, and if it is a > better way to do it it will be okay." Except this isn't true. The proof by > contradiction is exceptionally simple: > > If this was a just world, Lennart's pants would be on fire. > Lennart's pants are not on fire. > Therefore, this is not a just world, and justice must be manufactured. > > You might ask why his pants (and the pants of most systemd supporters) > would be on fire. Well, > https://pappp.net/?p=969 clearly explains how FLOS is not UNIX, and > the easy counterpoints get thoroughly trashed > http://lwn.net/Articles/440843/, and > http://blog.lusis.org/blog/2014/11/20/systemd-redux/ here's a guy > agreeing and suggesting everyone hit the big red EJECT. > > Why UNIX? Well, because that's just a concise, easy-to-phrase proxy for > the deeper issue of > > https://pay.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/2k5b7e/the_concern_isnt_that_systemd_itself_isnt/ > (aside: read the C++ in the kernel tangent if you are not familiar, it > seems to mirror this argument taking place and notably, Linus has chosen a > side on that one!) > which is echoed here http://lwn.net/Articles/440843/ > and here http://lwn.net/Articles/576078/ > and here http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/ProSystemdAntiSystemd/ (start with > unix philosophy) > and here http://lwn.net/Articles/494605/. > > Once upon a time I met a very masterful troll who got me to say precisely > what I needed to say precisely when I did not want to say it. What he got > me to say was: > >Oct 27 06:05:30 <*******> I study the orthodoxy consistently[sic] > >Oct 27 06:05:38 To find its flaws, yes > > So did Lennart &co. study the orthodox to learn from its failures? Did > they construct a conservative (re)implementation of the software exhibiting > those failures? It has been shown and continues to be shown that: no, they > are flying by the seat of their pants. A solution could have been > constructed which requires far less labor. Not only far less of *their* > labor, but far less labor for *everyone else* using a *nix. But they did > not thoroughly investigate such avenues, even within their > reimplementation! They are recreating bugs! It is impossible for them to > claim they are doing it over to do it right, as they have already failed at > that purpose. > > They have been shown to have wasted effort and continue to do so. When > labor is scarce, that is the most unethical action one can undertake. > > > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Marc Joliet wrote: > >> Am Fri, 21 Nov 2014 01:32:16 -0600 >> schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés : >> >> [...] >> > I highly recommend the article John Corbet wrote for LWN a week ago: >> > >> > http://lwn.net/Articles/619992/ >> [...] >> >> Thanks for the link, it was a good read. >> >> FWIW, I found this linked in one of the comments: >> >> http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/ProSystemdAntiSystemd/ >> >> Both articles echo thoughts that I have more and more with every >> "discussion" >> regarding systemd. >> >> My takeaway is similar to that of the lwn.net article (that is, both >> sides are >> being unnecessarily thick-headed), and find it remarkable how much I >> recognise >> from "discussions" here on gentoo-user (in contrast, gentoo-amd64 has >> been much >> more level-headed). However, I disagree with with the categorisation at >> the >> end, mainly because I hate it when people have to sort each other into >> "camps", >> so that they know who to hate and who to like (which isn't the author's >> fault, >> I think, politicised discussions tend to go that way as they intensify), >> but >> also because I think it is too strict and doesn't account for overlap (for >> myself I see reasons for both being and not being in either group). >> >> Greetings >> -- >> Marc Joliet >> -- >> "People who think they know everything really annoy those of us who know >> we >> don't" - Bjarne Stroustrup >> > >