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

[Martin Steigerwald]

Am Dienstag, 21. Oktober 2014, 11:21:36 schrieb 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.

Lennart, I didn´t imply that, and I didn´t say that.

> > 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!

Lennart, I get the impression you feel being accused. Yet I tried honestly to 
keep my mails to be polite and respectful. I tried to discuss about systemd 
and attitudes, not about persons.

Busybox is highly more optional than systemd. I can use bash and coreutils, or 
mksh and BSD commands or whatnot.

> > 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,

Well… actually I tried to discuss the concerns I and others have openly.

I went through the hassle to provide the feedback where it matters… upstream… 
instead of joining the flamefests elsewhere or calling you names…

… but it seems to me you are so sensitive to feedback that I don´t have the 
impression you even relate to the concerns I voiced here, which in part is a 
summary of the part of concerns I read elsewhere I see as being founded.

-- 
Martin 'Helios' Steigerwald - http://www.Lichtvoll.de
GPG: 03B0 0D6C 0040 0710 4AFA  B82F 991B EAAC A599 84C7