On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 04:44:34PM +0100, Bardur Arantsson wrote: > "change is not progress" has no bearing on whether systemd is a net > positive or not. The person you responded to explicitly said -- in the > very part you quoted, no less! -- "systemd improves a lot of stuff", so > clearly they're _not_ relying on the fallacious reasoning of "change = > progress"... so why bring it up unless you're just being argumentative > for no good reason? I am replying to the statement that “systemd is the future, everything else is the past”. It's made with one vague argument: “systemd improves a lot of stuff”, which is pretty much equivalent to “it changes things, so it's better”. If you're making grand statements like “X is better than everything else”, you better be prepared to provide evidence for that. > There's a huge difference between "I maintain systemd-free systems for > my own use" and "I maintain packages for a very popular distribution". > The latter has to work in a huge number of cases you haven't thought of. I was saying that the installation procedure doesn't change much. Yes, I agree that the number of possible points where stuff might go wrong increases when you add new variables. That's specifically why I don't like the idea of putting it on the shoulders of the Arch maintainers. If you want a flavour of Arch that does things a bit differently, then make one. I did, it works great for me and a few others. > Anyway, can we please end this thread now? It's not constructive. Agreed. The question of “should the Arch team maintain several bases” was answered many times, and it's always “no”. Arch is so flexible and nice to work with that it's not in any way useful to multiply their workload.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
