I'm replying very late because I needed to find the right words and they were not coming to me, till now. Feel free to return the favour (:
On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 15:24:23 +0100 Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net wrote:
On Fri, Jul 7, 2017 at 11:35 PM, David Niklas doark@mail.com wrote:
<snip>
I saw some of the most cordial behaviour that I have had the privilege to witness on a mailing list from most of (all?) the members!
huh. despite quite a lot of "venting", that's really appreciated to hear.
What I am about to write aught to be interpreted with respect to my understanding of people and myself and I make no guarantee that my understanding is correct; only that I believe it is correct. "Venting", when not directed against a person is an expression of disgust with a situation. A constructive use "Venting" is the writing about a problem, whether someone actually notices or the situation improves helps the person by expressing there thoughts and feelings on the matter instead of keeping it bottled up inside of them. A person "vents" because a situation would have to be important to them, not because it necessarily is (consider gov. spying or proprietary hardware, how many people "Vent" against those vs. say, protecting the environment). Typically just not contradicting a "venting" person will leave them calmer than when they started. Therefore, I did not and do not consider "Venting" in and of itself an evil, rather as a means to and end.
And there were times when those on the Devuan mailing list would seem to head towards the "I hate Poettering" side, but we would all engage them (except, maybe me because I would miss most of the discussion), to thinking about the enemy we were fighting, which was systemd, not Poettering, and it would work 100% of the time, at least as far as I remember. To be fair, I don't think anyone on the list would want to hire him or be his best friend, but that is personal preference or disgust, not hate.
I really believe that they will meet with success in their toiling. Not to justify by pointing to lesser examples, but contrast it with the behaviour of Mr. Pottering. Insta-bug-close. Taking every available short cut. No Portability to clang/bsd/etc.
*cringes*... i see you noticed his behaviour.
<snip>
I only wish I understood why. If you read Mr. Poettering's blog on systemd[1], he points out several technical merits. One of the biggest arguments against portability is made by telling people that daemons can't be trusted to stop and must, therefore be tracked by the init system so that they don't misbehave. He then goes on with how to write a daemon that utilizes systemd more effectively, thus daemons which were behaving under other init's stop working properly and function only on systemd unless they are written and tested on both systemd and not systemd init systems, thus doubling the work that needs to be done by the developers. Why must systemd do what it does the way it does? That is to say, if systemd must have unusual access to the kernel why not use a modular design so that BSD support could be implemented? Or even add a switch to the kernel to tell it to track a certain process so that it does not misbehave. That would work for both systemd and not systemd inits. The same could be done for socket activation. Have the daemon itself tell the kernel that it wants the socket to be opened with the expectation that another process will attach later.
The incompatibility with clang seems to be mostly an attempt at not wanting to do memory management, why not use rust?
Or sh ...... (:
Sincerely, David