From the wayback machine, I could not get into the link:
https://web.archive.org/web/20260403141132/https://tboteproj...
Systemd BirthDate Merge: Conflicts of Interest
11–20 of 25 posts
Re: Systemd BirthDate Merge: Conflicts of Interest
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree but all the proponents of it have said “it’s so convenient who cares”. That obviously states there are some features that bring value. I’m hard pressed to believe you need ALL of systemd architected how it is for those claims to hold.
There is value in not having to think about stuff too much. As my buddy sometimes says: 'I work support all the time, I don't want to do it at home as well.' Hard to argue with that. Heavens know I have less time for random exploration and related troubleshooting. But.. at certain point, that convenience is nulled by.. bad ideas. I honestly didn't decide which path ( well, distro really )I am choosing, but I know it…
I’m not sure your point. Does an init system actually require a huge team and budget behind it? Especially when one guy is already forcing decisions on everyone?
Re: Systemd BirthDate Merge: Conflicts of Interest
#13The "DiRUG reform" link leads nowhere and I can't find that particular site neither on bmj.de nor the Wayback Machine. Is that an hallucinated artifact?
Re: Systemd BirthDate Merge: Conflicts of Interest
#14I don't see the problem with the systemd DOB merger, the DOB will have to be stored somewhere and systemd already has a place where user information is securely stored so they added a new field to the user database.
The alternative is not that no DOB will be stored is that it will end up stored in 20 different locations on the filesystem.
Re: Systemd BirthDate Merge: Conflicts of Interest
#15The mailing list doesn't seem to make it out into such a controversial issue. It's an optional field that doesn't require a real birthday.
The issue isn’t the field but how the governance system for critical software is non-existant.
It also has to be considered in light of the fact that Lennart builds a company for "cryptographically verifiable integrity on Linux".
Re: Systemd BirthDate Merge: Conflicts of Interest
#16The mailing list doesn't seem to make it out into such a controversial issue. It's an optional field that doesn't require a real birthday.
The issue isn’t the field but how the governance system for critical software is non-existant.
Because someone added a new user field? Does that need governance?
Re: Systemd BirthDate Merge: Conflicts of Interest
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is value in not having to think about stuff too much. As my buddy sometimes says: 'I work support all the time, I don't want to do it at home as well.' Hard to argue with that. Heavens know I have less time for random exploration and related troubleshooting. But.. at certain point, that convenience is nulled by.. bad ideas. I honestly didn't decide which path ( well, distro really )I am choosing, but I know it…
I’m not sure your point. Does an init system actually require a huge team and budget behind it? Especially when one guy is already forcing decisions on everyone?
I think the answer is: it kinda depends on one's needs and each one of us will have to answer what it depends on. Honestly, one of the beauty and curse of linux ecosystem. One could argue there are already small and contained init systems that don't require huge team or crazy budgets ( certainly by comparison ).
Re: Systemd BirthDate Merge: Conflicts of Interest
#18Why doesn’t someone fork systemd and start reworking/taking out all the icky parts as well as destroying Poettering’s control over it? Debian’s forced accepting of Systemd is finally rearing it’s ugly head. I am glad I switched to Devuan earlier this year.
>Why doesn’t someone fork systemd
Why don't you? It's open source. No one is stopping you. Your ideas on how init systems should work are obviously superior, so you'll easily win over a majority of developers, right?
Re: Systemd BirthDate Merge: Conflicts of Interest
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue isn’t the field but how the governance system for critical software is non-existant.
Because someone added a new user field? Does that need governance?
When your software is the core piece of tech in almost all mainline Linux distros, yes it does require governance. However you may like someone being an authoritarian regardless of the “it’s only a user field no big deal” view and the next thing they change without governance for everyone you will be fine with also, even if you disagree. Again it’s not about the field.
Re: Systemd BirthDate Merge: Conflicts of Interest
#20Why doesn’t someone fork systemd and start reworking/taking out all the icky parts as well as destroying Poettering’s control over it? Debian’s forced accepting of Systemd is finally rearing it’s ugly head. I am glad I switched to Devuan earlier this year.
I think most distros are waiting to see if upstream can rethink this first and evaluate what makes sense. Forking something like systemd is no easy task. Perhaps this just starts out as a patch removing the DOB changes. But in reality, distros don't want to face possible legal ramifications either. It's all a bit messy, and time will tell (I suspect for the better, but who knows).