On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Tom Gundersen <teg@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 8:50 AM, Felipe Contreras > <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I don't have that machine available at the moment, but I don't see how >> such an issue could have been fixed given the lack of interest from >> Lennart in that G+ post. > > Without the insults, this would have been picked up on and sorted out > a long time ago. At least based on my experience. That's a loss for systemd, not for me. And I didn't insult anybody, Lennart did, so it's not my fault. >> I do read and write >> C everyday for probably for more than 10 years now, yet I do have >> trouble reading systemd's code, but that's not important, what is >> important is that in order to test my modifications (to add debugging >> for example), I would need to *recompile*. > > I'm aware that you are a professional, that's why I find your claims > about the difficulty of understanding/recompiling... odd. By contrast, > my C skills/experience are virtually nonexistent, and yet I have had > no problems understanding/debugging/recompiling/patching the systemd > code. It's not my claims, it's a fact; compiling is more complicated than not-compiling (one step less), and you need a compiler, and linker (and in some systems development packages), and sometimes deploying the binaries. With scripting you don't need any of that; after you are done editing the text (which you have to do regardless), you are done. >> Well, I see absolutely no evidence of such an analysis, so consider me >> a skeptic. > > That's ok. We are not in the PR business, we are not selling anything. You are selling a distribution. When Arch Linux stops giving the users what they want, the users will go for a different distribution. That's how distributions die; when something better is on the market for most of their users. Cheers. -- Felipe Contreras
