<html> <head> <meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 09/21/2014 01:31 PM, Martin Steigerwald wrote: </div> <blockquote cite="mid:3564334.YP6vic3Cuc@merkaba" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">in the light of the ongoing discussions on linux-kernel</pre> </blockquote> Could you provide a link to that ongoing discussion that is taking place in the kernel community regarding systemd? <blockquote cite="mid:3564334.YP6vic3Cuc@merkaba" type="cite"> <pre wrap=""> Did you ever ask yourself why your project provokes that amount of resistance and polarity? Did you ever ask yourself whether this really is just resistance against anything new from people who just do not like "new" or whether it contains *valuable* and *important* feedback?</pre> </blockquote> I'm not sure why you are under the assumption that we do not consider and have not and are not gathering feedback from individuals, communities or companies for that matter but I'm going to address your questions anyway. Have we ever asked ourselves why our project provokes that amount of resistance and polarity? The answer to that question is yes, yes we have and yes we will continue to do so since resistance and polarity provides with the valuable information amongst other things if the implementation is bad and alternative approach is better ( which often reveals itself at the same time those friction take place ). Dont get me wrong we will not do so when those discussion involve nothing but personal attack on our community member(s) which more often than not happens to be Lennart, Lennart is and never has been the sole person behind this effort, he's part of ever growing community. Nor when it involves us having to implement somekind of hack as opposed to have the problem properly fixed where it belongs ( which could be us or not ) or when those discussion criticizes that we have chosen to tightly integrate ourselves specifically to the linux kernel it's ecosystem and with glibc in mind just like bsd based distribution as well as solaris and other nixes are tightly integrating their components to their kernels but for some dumbfound reason people on the internet are under the assumption that they have the authority of refusing us the freedom of doing the same o_O and the answer to those individuals we dont care about their opinion on this matter. Now alot of the resistance and polarity that is taking place like in the url you pointed at is hiding itself behind their misinterpretation of the so called "Unix philosophy" and claiming that we somehow fall short on the guidelines originates from few things Doug McIlroy,Rob Pike,Ken Thompson said sometime in the 70's or rather the "Unix philosophy" was implied not by what these individuals said but rather by what they did which more or less boils down to this.. 1. Write simple parts connected by clean interfaces. 2. Clarity is better than cleverness. 3. Design programs to be connected to other programs. 4. Separate policy from mechanism; separate interfaces from engines. 5. Design for simplicity; add complexity only where you must. 6. Write a big program only when it is clear by demonstration that nothing else will do. 7. Rule of Transparency: Design for visibility to make inspection and debugging easier. 8. Robustness is the child of transparency and simplicity. 9. Fold knowledge into data so program logic can be stupid and robust. 10. In interface design, always do the least surprising thing. 11. When a program has nothing surprising to say, it should say nothing. 12. When you must fail, fail noisily and as soon as possible. 13. Programmer time is expensive; conserve it in preference to machine time. 14. Avoid hand-hacking; write programs to write programs when you can. 15. Prototype before polishing. Get it working before you optimize it. 16. Distrust all claims for “one true way”. 17. Design for the future, because it will be here sooner than you think. Now after you have read these more of an guidelines than actual philosophy I would like to hear from you where you think systemd has and is falling short of them during it's development phase and lifetime so I can better understand why people seem to be claiming it's not following these guidelines? That being said acceptance and approval are outweighing resistance and polarity in the Linux ecosystem as things currently stand ( otherwise we would not be so widely accepted and adopted ) because we are and continue to solve real problems through close collaboration with wide variety of upstream and distribution, In the long run freeing up contributors time while doings so through the consolidation that takes place while we are at it. If you are wondering as well if we are against emerging alternative init system like the one you refereed to, the answer to that question is no we are not. We welcome and embrace them and hope they evolve to the point they become competing solution so we can continue to evolve ourselves ( or advance beyond us and eventually replace us ) but being frank that wont happen anytime soon. Systemd has been what ca 7 years in the making now with what 5 of those years being direct integration with wide variety of components and distribution so this is not a simple matter of writing an new init system, this is so much much more work which I dont think those new or existing init project and it's developers realize. Now just a word of advice... You should take it with a grain of salt what alot anti-systemd sites or individuals are saying on the interweb since more often than not those things are based on misinformation ( like most recently on post on linux.com "Red Hat is the inventor and primary booster of systemd," this is false ) and since the internet is expert in spreading ignorance and we can only fight back ignorance with enlightenment and we can only do so with people that are willing to listen, which unfortunately more often than not, these individuals will not. With regards to anykind of anti systemd discussion taking place in wide varity of Debians community mailinglists if I was you, I would simply remind those individuals that an democratic voting has taken place within the community and not accepting the outcome of that voting and help in the process integrate systemd better into Debian ( which in turn will result in feedback either there to here or directly here ) is an utterly and total disrespect to it's community members and Debians democracy ( from my stand point ). JBG </body> </html>