[systemd-devel] I wonder… why systemd provokes this amount of polarity and resistance

[Lennart Poettering]

On Tue, 21.10.14 10:53, Martin Steigerwald (Martin at lichtvoll.de) wrote:

> So, aside from it being additional work, is there any *solid* or even 
> *unavoidable* technical reason to couple functionality that tightly?

Yes, there always is. For logind for example we need to be able to
group the processes of a session, so that we can keep track of them,
list them, kill them, get notifications about them, and so on. For
that we need the "scope" concept of PID1. That's why logind talks to
PID 1.

You know, it really annoys me if you imply that we just made these
choices because we are assholes. We use the APIs we use because we
need their technical functionality. It's that simple. It would be
great if you'd grant us the benefit of the doubt at least, instead of
implying anything else. 

> Wherever I look free software projects do great extra work to modularize and 
> separate out functionality that can be separate. For a reason. See KDE 
> community for example. They spend years of development work into separating 
> things out into separate packages and have a clear ruling on what may depend 
> on what. There are other examples for sure, OpenStack for example, while I do 
> not yet know it in detail consists of a ton of separate packages in
> Debian.

Well, we are not KDE, and not OpenStack. We provide a basic toolbox to
build an OS from. Compare us with Busybox if you must. I don't hear
you complaining about busybox all the time!

> So or so… I think its this kind of attitude that triggers most of the polarity 
> and split.

Well, our priority is to solve technical problems in a way we perceive
elegant and minimal. Your priority appears to be appeasing people who
prefer religious reasoning over technical reasoning. I am pretty sure
you cannot appease those, and we will not compromise our technical
necessesities for that.

Anyway, can we please end this discussion on this ML please? Please
continue this somewhere else, this ML is really for technical
discussions.

Sorry,

Lennart

-- 
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat