On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 02:38:36PM +0200, drago01 wrote: >> > That's what we call a successful transition. Now, we can incrementally >> > introduce improvements over the next few releases. >> Once you start doing that people will cry because it is different from >> what they are used too (does not matter if the change is for the >> better or worse). > > So, let me ask a question: why do you think people have that response? Read this thread? Or any other one that introduces any major change? >> >> The books won't magically be rewritten in time for F16 (people aren't >> >> even using systemd so why write / update books) ? >> > Because updated books sell? But authors need some lead time. >> How many books about initng exist? > > Did any distribution ever say: we intend to move to initng in one year and > it's in testing now? Because if they did, I'm sure that books would reflect > that. No, but even if would be very unlikely ... producing books costs time and money you don't do it because someone said "sometime we will start using foo". If anything books document existing stuff (and most of the time lag behind), not what is planned in X years. >> >> Isn't it one of Fedora's missions to innovate and lead and not stay in >> >> the past forever because people are afraid of change? >> > That last part isn't in the mission, no. >> Than please read http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Overview >> "The Fedora Project always strives to lead, not follow." >> Which means "not wait for others to do the work but do it" > > Leadership means making careful, well-conceived decisions. Otherwise, it's > not leading, it's charging around blindly shouting "follow me!". Yeah, systemd seems to replace a part of the system which has been pretty much stagnant for ever and implements a lot of interesting concepts. On the other side we have "it isn't 100% like sysvinit" ... So given this arguments I'd opt for the former. Going back to the above statement .. we lead by introducing it so when others adapt it the books should have started to catch up. Which is pretty much in line with Fedora's mission. > > >> > Otherwise, you're changing all >> > the time for no reason -- it's like saying "Imagine how much faster our cars >> > could go if there were no friction!". >> > >> > The tricky part is finding out the appropriate level of friction. And that >> > works better if we discuss in a constructive way as a community. There's a >> > disturbing tendency among the no-friction advocates to cry "bike-shedding", >> > but actually gathering feedback is an important part of the process. >> >> Where did I say that one shouldn't gather feedback? >> Feed and constructive criticism is helpful regardless of change or not. > > I am not getting the message from this thread that systemd developers > believe that. Rather, we get "it's clearly a matter of taste and > bike-shedding", and "I probably shouldn't even have bothered to even reply > to this mail of yours." > >> But "foo is worse than bar because it is different than bar" just >> doesn't cut it. > > Not only does it "cut it", it is a very important point. There is a _very > real_ cost to changing from established practices. Often (and perhaps very > often, in a bleeding-edge distribution like Fedora) it's worth it to do so > despite that cost, because otherwise there's stagnation. But you must: > > 1) make the case for how the change outweighs the cost, and > > 2) work to reduce that cost as much as possible. See above. > Instead, you seem to be trying to argue that change comes for free. No I am just saying that a change isn't bad because it is a change. > (And > that those who have to pay this cost are "crying".) Everyone has to pay this cost and everyone gets something in return. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
