Am 08.10.2014 um 19:35 schrieb Valeri Galtsev <galtsev at kicp.uchicago.edu>: > > On Wed, October 8, 2014 12:22 pm, Robert Arkiletian wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:08 AM, <m.roth at 5-cent.us> wrote: >> >>> Jonathan Billings wrote: >>> >>> And the point of it is? >>> >>> Can someone just send the team that's working systemd on a nice >>> vacation, >>> say, maybe northern Iraq/Syria, the land of ISIS? >>> >> >> Just a heads up to those who haven't seen this yet. The main author of >> systemd publicly wrote about being basically persecuted. >> >> https://plus.google.com/u/0/+LennartPoetteringTheOneAndOnly/posts/J2TZrTvu7vd > > OK, I for one am boycotting his creature, to the extent I can, the way I > can: I move my servers away from Linux (to FreeBSD, if someone > interested). None of my server will run on the box that has systemd. > Workstations stay Linux... I wonder why personal implications are communicated without explained reasons (because all are screaming doesn't mean its valid). "Changes" have inherent implications by it self - it doesn't matter what was the change. Take a look back (or step) and try to see what is being ignored, changes all over the community projects (e.g. kernel, gui, distros, wm, nfs, config syntax). So whats the point and why bothers other, if the problem [1] lies in our selfs? BTW, you have the choice. [1] problem definition: actual state = EL6, goal = EL7 and something that is preventing the transition (and that is for sure nothing technical). PS: I'm not taking a position for systemd - just seeing some kind of structure. -- LF