People who lobby with decision makers at major distributions for their software to be made the de-facto standard, instead of leaving it to the userbase, have a deeply anti-democratic mindset, and that makes them assholes.
I didn’t know much about Linux when Systemd was adopted by Debian. And how would I make myself loud enough for people to notice? I still don’t have the technical knowledge to completely grasp the operating reasons why people chose it, all I know is that systemd was meant to be an init system, and now it is no longer just an init system. It’s in things it shouldn’t be in. I’m sure people worked hard on it but one program edging out general alternatives shouldn’t have been the way of development
You don’t know the details of why it was chosen, yet you complain about people with obviously more knowledge on these topics having chosen it… reminds me of science deniers.
All I’m saying is that it shouldn’t have gone beyond being an init system. Is it so hard to understand that one might want one application to do one thing and do it well?
Your opinion is that systemd is objectively better being more than an init system?
I prefer my software to work as single units which can communicate using standard, agnostic technologies to one another, not be a gigantic binary blob which is too hard for even some of the most brilliant people in the community to understand
It’s not even a single binary blob. Shows your competence around this topic. Feel free to continue rambling and whatever without knowing anything about it.
People who lobby with decision makers at major distributions for their software to be made the de-facto standard, instead of leaving it to the userbase, have a deeply anti-democratic mindset, and that makes them assholes.
And what concerns did/do you exactly have? Did you as a “democratic” user make yourself loud instead of crying about “corruption” on lemmy?
I didn’t know much about Linux when Systemd was adopted by Debian. And how would I make myself loud enough for people to notice? I still don’t have the technical knowledge to completely grasp the operating reasons why people chose it, all I know is that systemd was meant to be an init system, and now it is no longer just an init system. It’s in things it shouldn’t be in. I’m sure people worked hard on it but one program edging out general alternatives shouldn’t have been the way of development
You don’t know the details of why it was chosen, yet you complain about people with obviously more knowledge on these topics having chosen it… reminds me of science deniers.
All I’m saying is that it shouldn’t have gone beyond being an init system. Is it so hard to understand that one might want one application to do one thing and do it well?
And what knowledge makes that opinion have any factual value?
Your opinion is that systemd is objectively better being more than an init system?
I prefer my software to work as single units which can communicate using standard, agnostic technologies to one another, not be a gigantic binary blob which is too hard for even some of the most brilliant people in the community to understand
It’s not even a single binary blob. Shows your competence around this topic. Feel free to continue rambling and whatever without knowing anything about it.