On Thursday 23 Aug 2012 21:47:14 Norbert Zeh wrote: > I tried to keep my mouth shut but can't resist to reply here because I > simply don't understand how you think the world works. Do you want to see > proof that every piece of open-source software is ready to be used? That's > ridiculous. Open-source software is being developed. People think it may > be interesting. They try it. It doesn't work, they forget about it. It > does work, they use it. It does work, except for some issues here and > there, people use it and provide bug reports in the hope the bugs will be > fixed. Even though I'm not a systemd fanboy and probably would have been > equally happy continuing with init scripts for a while, my general > impression is that systemd is in the latter category. It works for a large > number of people (the majority?), it works flawlessly for me so far. Yet, > here you are raising doubts about systemd being ready to be used. That > puts *you* in a position to explain why you think there are serious reasons > why systemd should not be adopted. Your confusion stems from a > misunderstanding of what the default is. In law, the default assumption is > that the accused is innocent and any claim to the contrary needs to be > proven. You seem to assume that the default assumption is that the > software is broken, and it needs to be proven that it works. In reality it > works the other way around, and I think it's the only model that works > because nobody would develop and distribute software *for free* if they > also had to prove that it works. Ironing out the glitches that still exist > in certain pieces of software through early adoption, testing, and > reporting of bugs upstream is exactly the role bleeding edge distributions > such as arch play in the open-source ecosystem. > > Then again, much of this has been said a bit differently before. So I'm not > sure you'll follow the argument. Bravo! This was well said. Paul
