[Arm-netbook] Logging and journaling

[zap]

Can we all just calm down, about the systemd thing. 

Luke is trying his hardest, is sick and also KEEP IN MIND, HE DID NOT
HAVE TO START THIS CAMPAIGN! WE NEED TO BE MORE GRATEFUL!

I must admit, I don't understand the systemd arguments, but if he is set
on doing it that way, then its not a big issue,

we can easily do what we want if need be anyways. IF your on this
mailing list, its a good chance you can reinstall if need be. 

I myself would not care if he didn't have systemd in by default.  All I
know is, he is a good ethical person who needs support not endless
criticisms.  

Please, let us be more patient and kindhearted.  He is doing us a favor
even doing this campaign.

I still am curious though, and this question is for Luke,

is systemd lack security, privacy or stability? 

I just would like Him to answer and no one else to understand his
thinking process.

Anyways though not here to condemn anyone, just try to be reasonable
that is all.


On 02/12/2017 04:19 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
> ---
> crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 4:36 AM, Julie Marchant <onpon4 at riseup.net> wrote:
>> On 02/11/2017 05:51 PM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>>> you're going
>>> to have to demonstrate to me that systemd has been developed (and
>>> deployed) in a 100% ethical manner
>> So systemd is guilty until proven innocent?
>  it's been demonstrated already to have been unethically developed and
> deployed (the problem being in this conversation that any time i
> mention why i believe that to be the case, it's dismissed or rejected
> - often violently. these reactions *being* symptomatic of the very
> underlying reason and cause of my deeply-felt concern... concern that
> i am having a lot of difficulty expressing)
>
> i was inviting people to evaluate that for themselves, for two
> reasons: firstly i'm completely exhausted so don't have time or energy
> to go over it, and secondly, if i provide all the answers that removes
> all opportunity and possibility for learning.
>
>  an ethical act is defined as "increasing the truth, love, awareness
> or creativity
>  (those qualities being synonymous guide-words for the same underlying
>  concept) of one or more people without reducing the same qualities
> for *anyone*".
>
>  now, before asking the crucial questions, i have to ask people to
> consider answering them *without judgement*, and *without implied or
> expressed criticism*, in an *objective* fashion.  if i ask questions
> and people react, "what are you saying???? are you saying that
> debian's process is incompetent??? how DARE you!!!" or much worse
> reactions than that, we're not going to get anywhere.
>
>  we know that there's an underlying systemic breakdown that is *not
> anyone's fault*.  reacting badly by assuming that any *discussion* of
> the underlying systemic breakdown *is* one particular group or
> individual's fault is itself part of the problem.
>
>  so please don't do it.  not on this list.
>
>  so.  the question is: what behaviours or decisions in the development
> and deployment of systemd can be shown to have caused a reduction of
> truth, love, awareness or creativity in at least one person?
>
>  put another way (in terms of energy expenditure and resources, which
> is a parallel and identical way to ask the exact same question):
>
>  has any individual, anywhere in the world, had to spend extensive
> amounts of time and energy as a result of (1) the development or (2)
> the deployment of systemd, which *could* have been avoided and,
> because it was not, resulted in a reduction of or diversion of their
> resources, time or energy?
>
>
>
>
>> Alright then, unless you can demonstrate to me that the EOMA68-A20 has
>> been developed and deployed in a 100% "ethical" manner (where I am not
>> going to explain what "ethical" means),
>  julie, sorry, but that's not reasonable or rational.  reading the
> lines i believe i understand the point you are trying to make.  bear
> in mind i didn't come across an actual definition of an "ethical act"
> until about 6 months ago, which doesn't help, much of what i've been
> *trying* to do has been subconscious or just not possible to properly
> express.
>
>  so,
>
>> I am going to assume that it is
>> unethical and refuse to support it.
>>
>> Except I'm not actually going to do that, because that would be
>> unreasonable.
>  un-reason-able.  you can think of a good *reason* why such action
> would cause a reduction of truth/love/awareness/creativity.  you
> operate by an ethical code.  this is fantastic.
>
>> There's a reason our courts don't work this way.
>  interestingly dutch law has a fundamental basis that if someone may
> show something to be "unreasonable", it is acceptable and *overrides*
> existing laws.  first country i ever heard of that has such a basis.
>
> l.
>
> _______________________________________________
> arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook at lists.phcomp.co.uk
> http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
> Send large attachments to arm-netbook at files.phcomp.co.uk