It's not a dichotomy. I'm saying they're 2 very similar reasons that fall under the same umbrella, and that either one or the other is likely to be accurate.
They make a lot more sense than
1) the company is making too much money and wants to be less profitable 2) the company thinks Cody Wilson is a poopyhead
If "Stripe" was in quotes or something, it would help.
"Firm Stripe" could be some sort of adverb. A method of booting someone? (Online Payment) (Firm-Stripe Boots) (3D Gun Designer)
"Stripe Boots" could be the company since "Firm" seems to set us up for a name but we're missing a terminator. And "gun" could be a verb (like "gun down"). (Online Payment Firm "Stripe Boots") (3D Gun) (Designer). But then "gun" should be "guns."
(Online Payment Firm "Stripe") (Boots-Gun Designer) Or maybe there's such a thing as a Boots Gun? A gun that fires boots? But then we're missing a verb...
Online Payment Firm "Stripe" Boots Gun Designer Hmm...maybe "stripe" refers to the magnetic stripe? Or do people usually call that a magnetic strip?
Keeping in mind the news these days, it seems obvious to me that we should apply Occam's Razor to the situation. Either:
A) the company doesn't want to do business with him anymore in case they get in trouble with the government, or B) the government directly told them to stop.
Engineer - "Hey Boss, we need some cash to upgrade the connection to these networks." Boss - "How about we raise their rates, just say we upgraded the network, and pocket the difference?" Catbert - "I like the way you think."
You can choose to move states and get different choices, so you aren't "locked in".
By that logic, we could have a single company providing a service to the entire world minus one podunk town in the middle of Siberia (directly financed by Putin probably) and it "wouldn't be a monopoly."
Fuck all you guys with your contortions to redefine the argument to "prove" yourself correct.
I also love how every time I show that your argument is 100% factually incorrect or you're using precisely the wrong term, you jump to the next thing without acknowledging anything.
While we're at it, why haven't any of MY repeated questions ever been answered? Nobody's ever explained why the onus of forking should be on the established way of doing things, especially in DEBIAN.
Many people here don't hate systemd as a product nearly as much as they hate how it's being foisted on the ecosystem.
Your bias against Red Hat developers can't be more obvious.
Well, apparently it could be more obvious to me. We're going around in circles here. They're the guys who wrote the software, of course they're going to vote for it. But me not taking that at face value that "obviously that must mean it's a good thing" is me displaying bias against the developers? The fuck? I can't tell whether you're being naive, obtuse, or just not effectively translating my arguments and assuming that I'm therefore an idiot.
How is binary logs not a technical argument against systemd? journald makes everybody's lives more difficult for no benefit other than "look what we can implement."
I swear, the next time I hear somebody say "you just hate it because it's new" I'm going to have a hard time not stabbing them in the eye. Sometimes NEW THINGS just happen to SUCK.
We give you guys reasons and then you stick your fingers in your ears and say "LA LA LA I DON'T HEAR ANY REASONS."
I find it a bit interesting that the top 3 guys listed under systemd (Poettering, Sievers, and Hoyer) are all German and, from his sig and a few interesting misspellings in posts, devent seems to be German as well.
When you redefine "binary format" to mean "anything represented via 0s and 1s," sure. In the context of this argument, it means "a computer file that is not a text file; it may contain any type of data, encoded in binary form for computer storage and processing purposes."
You, the 8 guys on that Debian council, Red Hat, and Lennart Poettering are all welcome to your opinions, it just irks me that you keep denying that there's significant dissent on the issue.
Systemd is not a product of RedHat employees, Red Hat Linux is.
Go read the systemd Wikipedia page. The top 3 developers they list are all Red Hat employees (the rest don't have Wikipedia articles and I don't really want to go digging).
And RedHat employees feel the need to develop systemd for the success of Red Hat Linux.
Not necessarily. If they're paid by Red Hat and Red Hat tells them to write systemd...connect the dots. Maybe they (well, Lennart sure seems to, anyway) believe what they're doing is the right approach, or maybe they're just collecting a paycheck.
And Debian feels the need to replace sysvinit with a modern init system. It was either systemd or upstart, and upstart was not ready.
There are plenty of people on Slashdot who will tell you that neither does sysvinit need to be replaced, nor is systemd ready to do so. But we're not Debian, so yeah.
Then why you not trust the Debian developers to make a very informed decision about adopting systemd?
When half the guys on the board are Red Hat employees and the vote just by sheer coincidence is a 50-50 split, I'm not filled with trust.
Fedora is using systemd since Fedora 15 (now we are at Fedora 20). That means 5 released of testing (three years) and adopted by Red Hat Enterprise Linux since version 7
Well no shit. Systemd is a Red Hat project, so of course it's in Fedora.
I think your argument boils down to "I don't like systemd because it's new and I don't like new stuff".
So put it on your own damn branch!
Especially considering this is Debian we're talking about, I don't understand why so many pro-systemd people are saying "if you don't like it, then fork off a non-systemd version." It's DEBIAN. Debian is all about NOT having the new unstable shiny!
D U O V F - Bdale Garbee D U O V F - Russ Allbery D U O V F - Don Armstrong D U O V F - Keith Packard (Intel) U D O F V - Colin Watson U F D O V - Andreas Barth F U D O V - Steve Langasek (Canonical) F V O U D - Ian Jackson
So assuming left-to-right priority, 2 votes were for "further discussion." So it was more or less a 4-2 vote with 2 abstentions. Langasek's second choice was upstart, and Jackson's second choice was sysvinit. If they both went to the upstart side--which sounds like a quite reasonable outcome to me--we'd be looking at a 4-4 tie. If a tie-breaker is necessary to break deadlock, there is NO WAY you can call it "overwhelming."
Like I said before, 50%+1 (which this vote wasn't, even) is not my definition of "overwhelming." I dare say that most people would call that a majority (more votes than all other choices combined). This is merely a plurality, among a particularly small sample size at that.
Ich kann mit Übersetzungsschwierigkeiten sympathisieren.
Slashdot Mirror
I've found many many links to torrents, and even direct downloads, using Google. Why aren't the founders of Google on trial?
*IAA would love to be able to pull that off.
Don't give them ideas.
How is that not covered under my 2 points?
It's not a dichotomy. I'm saying they're 2 very similar reasons that fall under the same umbrella, and that either one or the other is likely to be accurate.
They make a lot more sense than
1) the company is making too much money and wants to be less profitable
2) the company thinks Cody Wilson is a poopyhead
So what are your proposed alternatives?
If "Stripe" was in quotes or something, it would help.
"Firm Stripe" could be some sort of adverb. A method of booting someone?
(Online Payment) (Firm-Stripe Boots) (3D Gun Designer)
"Stripe Boots" could be the company since "Firm" seems to set us up for a name but we're missing a terminator. And "gun" could be a verb (like "gun down").
(Online Payment Firm "Stripe Boots") (3D Gun) (Designer). But then "gun" should be "guns."
(Online Payment Firm "Stripe") (Boots-Gun Designer)
Or maybe there's such a thing as a Boots Gun? A gun that fires boots? But then we're missing a verb...
Online Payment Firm "Stripe" Boots Gun Designer
Hmm...maybe "stripe" refers to the magnetic stripe? Or do people usually call that a magnetic strip?
You can be smart enough to figure out how to implement a cryptocurrency system, but not wise enough to understand the ethical arguments.
Cf. those phone phreakers who broke into stuff for kicks, but many of them had no hostile intent.
Keeping in mind the news these days, it seems obvious to me that we should apply Occam's Razor to the situation. Either:
A) the company doesn't want to do business with him anymore in case they get in trouble with the government, or
B) the government directly told them to stop.
I think we need a corollary to Godwin's Law just for people who mention nuclear weapons in gun ownership debates.
If you start your own distribution and set up your own organization
After you. You can call it Poetterix if you like.
Engineer - "Hey Boss, we need some cash to upgrade the connection to these networks."
Boss - "How about we raise their rates, just say we upgraded the network, and pocket the difference?"
Catbert - "I like the way you think."
FTFY
But then I'm not in US.
Ah, so you're almost entirely irrelevant to this conversation. Thanks so much.
You can choose to move states and get different choices, so you aren't "locked in".
By that logic, we could have a single company providing a service to the entire world minus one podunk town in the middle of Siberia (directly financed by Putin probably) and it "wouldn't be a monopoly."
Fuck all you guys with your contortions to redefine the argument to "prove" yourself correct.
I also love how every time I show that your argument is 100% factually incorrect or you're using precisely the wrong term, you jump to the next thing without acknowledging anything.
While we're at it, why haven't any of MY repeated questions ever been answered? Nobody's ever explained why the onus of forking should be on the established way of doing things, especially in DEBIAN.
Many people here don't hate systemd as a product nearly as much as they hate how it's being foisted on the ecosystem.
How is systemd a product? How is Red Hat going to make money with it?
Red Hat is a company, they don't write software just for the fun of it.
Since when does Red Hat ever make money by selling a product? They make money from the support contracts.
Definition "something produced by effort, or some mechanical or industrial process" In fact, show me anywhere on that page that it says anything about pricing or costs.
Your bias against Red Hat developers can't be more obvious.
Well, apparently it could be more obvious to me. We're going around in circles here. They're the guys who wrote the software, of course they're going to vote for it. But me not taking that at face value that "obviously that must mean it's a good thing" is me displaying bias against the developers? The fuck? I can't tell whether you're being naive, obtuse, or just not effectively translating my arguments and assuming that I'm therefore an idiot.
How is binary logs not a technical argument against systemd? journald makes everybody's lives more difficult for no benefit other than "look what we can implement."
I swear, the next time I hear somebody say "you just hate it because it's new" I'm going to have a hard time not stabbing them in the eye. Sometimes NEW THINGS just happen to SUCK.
We give you guys reasons and then you stick your fingers in your ears and say "LA LA LA I DON'T HEAR ANY REASONS."
Idiot is in the eye of the beholder.
s/made up story/metaphor/g
We really bring it on ourselves by trying to be subtle online.
I find it a bit interesting that the top 3 guys listed under systemd (Poettering, Sievers, and Hoyer) are all German and, from his sig and a few interesting misspellings in posts, devent seems to be German as well.
Coincidence?
When you redefine "binary format" to mean "anything represented via 0s and 1s," sure. In the context of this argument, it means "a computer file that is not a text file; it may contain any type of data, encoded in binary form for computer storage and processing purposes."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
You, the 8 guys on that Debian council, Red Hat, and Lennart Poettering are all welcome to your opinions, it just irks me that you keep denying that there's significant dissent on the issue.
Systemd is not a product of RedHat employees, Red Hat Linux is.
Go read the systemd Wikipedia page. The top 3 developers they list are all Red Hat employees (the rest don't have Wikipedia articles and I don't really want to go digging).
And RedHat employees feel the need to develop systemd for the success of Red Hat Linux.
Not necessarily. If they're paid by Red Hat and Red Hat tells them to write systemd...connect the dots. Maybe they (well, Lennart sure seems to, anyway) believe what they're doing is the right approach, or maybe they're just collecting a paycheck.
"Accurate communication is possible only in a non-punishing situation."
And Debian feels the need to replace sysvinit with a modern init system. It was either systemd or upstart, and upstart was not ready.
There are plenty of people on Slashdot who will tell you that neither does sysvinit need to be replaced, nor is systemd ready to do so. But we're not Debian, so yeah.
My point was that systemd was tested for 3 years over 5 releases of Fedora.
Parts of it, anyway. Aren't they still designing replacements out of whole cloth these days?
And why do you have a bias against Red Hat developers?
It's not a bias so much as acknowledging that they, as RedHat employees, have a vested interest in the success of systemd, their product.
If you assign 1 point to each level of the votes, you get:
First choice only: 4 systemd, 4 not-systemd
Second choice included: 9 systemd, 15 not-systemd
No matter how you swing it, all I see is that half the voters involved don't want it.
Then why you not trust the Debian developers to make a very informed decision about adopting systemd?
When half the guys on the board are Red Hat employees and the vote just by sheer coincidence is a 50-50 split, I'm not filled with trust.
Fedora is using systemd since Fedora 15 (now we are at Fedora 20). That means 5 released of testing (three years) and adopted by Red Hat Enterprise Linux since version 7
Well no shit. Systemd is a Red Hat project, so of course it's in Fedora.
I think your argument boils down to "I don't like systemd because it's new and I don't like new stuff".
So put it on your own damn branch!
Especially considering this is Debian we're talking about, I don't understand why so many pro-systemd people are saying "if you don't like it, then fork off a non-systemd version." It's DEBIAN. Debian is all about NOT having the new unstable shiny!
Okay, maybe "significant" is a poor choice of words. Statisticians would probably get mad at me. How about "strong" instead.
Assuming I'm reading this right:
D U O V F - Bdale Garbee
D U O V F - Russ Allbery
D U O V F - Don Armstrong
D U O V F - Keith Packard (Intel)
U D O F V - Colin Watson
U F D O V - Andreas Barth
F U D O V - Steve Langasek (Canonical)
F V O U D - Ian Jackson
http://www.reddit.com/r/linux/...
D systemd
U upstart
O openrc
V sysvinit (no change)
F requires further discussion
http://www.muktware.com/2014/0...
So assuming left-to-right priority, 2 votes were for "further discussion." So it was more or less a 4-2 vote with 2 abstentions. Langasek's second choice was upstart, and Jackson's second choice was sysvinit. If they both went to the upstart side--which sounds like a quite reasonable outcome to me--we'd be looking at a 4-4 tie. If a tie-breaker is necessary to break deadlock, there is NO WAY you can call it "overwhelming."
Like I said before, 50%+1 (which this vote wasn't, even) is not my definition of "overwhelming." I dare say that most people would call that a majority (more votes than all other choices combined). This is merely a plurality, among a particularly small sample size at that.
Ich kann mit Übersetzungsschwierigkeiten sympathisieren.
He's not "deciding" anything; he's just stating his opinion. Last I checked we were allowed to have opinions.
People disagreeing with you does not make them narcissistic asses.
*vendetta