I think you misunderstand. The technical arguments are real; of that there's no doubt. But the reason this particular issue could not be resolved entirely in the technical arena is because of the nature of the change. Poettering and his ilk are expressing a fundamentally different vision for Linux through the design and implementation of systemd. In its essence, systemd is kind of an anti-POSIX. It is premised on the primacy of Linux, it espouses a holistic (as opposed to piecemeal) approach, and while it's liberal about third party libs and utilities playing in its sandbox, it shits in everyone else's.

An example: If their version of libpam detects that it's NOT running in a systemd context, it does nothing and simply returns a success token, which is probably the least obnoxious thing to do, but which still could cause some significant issues, depending on the circumstances. The obvious alternatives of integrating more generic behaviour into the library, or using someone else's, just don't pass muster with Team SystemD, because that's pretty much the opposite of what they believe to be important.

So although the conflict is playing itself out tactically on the technical level, this really is a schism between two significantly different FOSS philosophies.

BINGO. In spite of Joey being on the 'winning' side of the systemd debate, his resignation seems to be a direct reaction to the schism that systemd has driven into the linux community. As someone far brighter than me said:

the systemd debate is rarely a technical argument for either side, instead it is an ideological and cultural war waged by two opposing demographics that inhabit the same general sphere of Linux and FOSS. This isn’t about technical merits, it’s about politics.

Read the whole piece. It's one of the best round-ups of the state of the debate.

(And by 'debate', I mean 'debacle' of course.)

Interesting. We're evaluating RACHEL too.

But please do give some thought to performance. It's underrated as an issue.

Most people - even many of my colleagues - think that something, anything is better than nothing. And that's true, as far as it goes. Our immediate challenge is getting broadband internet to a part of the world that doesn't have any automation whatsoever, unless you count horses. It's quite remarkable the lengths they're willing to go to in order to see their children's lives improved. But it's equally interesting how people's attitudes change as ease of access improves.

Right now, there's one village where they need to climb a nearby mountain in order to get mobile coverage. There are phones in the village, but they're few in number and reserved for particular uses. There's almost a tabu built up around their use, and nobody is particularly proficient with them, nor is there much sophistication or even process optimisation in their use. The point is that children can't really get the most out of the material unless it's immediately available all the time. There's enough effort required in terms of language and technological process that even a small amount of additional inconvenience will be enough disincentive for the majority that uptake is no longer generalised.

Of course, that has to be balanced against being able to run the damn thing at all.

Then you vote on who cuts, and you can't vote for yourself. You clearly have never had a tabletop covered in dope in front of you.

Nor have I, of course, but I'm told that those who do, would do it that way.

In theory.

Mos def. I mean, look at the shadows along the edges, and the borders between the colours. Moiré patterns all over the place! I use Photoshop professionally, and I'm telling you, it's photoshopped.

Yep, just like the Aptus Classroom Without Walls (sorry, PDF only - not my site) or any one of a dozen other attempts at this.

I am right at this moment putting together the ground work to deliver tablets and computers to some of the most remote areas in the developing world, and we've been looking very carefully at this kind of stuff. Right now, we're leaning heavily toward just reappropriating the software and using better hardware. The big problem with this kind of server-in-a-dongle is that, although it's possible to make a cute knick-knack with a tiny processor, it doesn't handle a class of 40 children (and more) well at all.

As far as this particular one is concerned: would it be too much to ask to see a listing of the content in this 'library'? I checked the site, and there's basically nothing.

There's a point past which it ceases being a whoosh and becomes sonic boom.

(I was so like, 'FUUUUUCCKK YOOUU --- oh.')

Just reposting this here, because apparently Mr I'm All Right Jack has a problem with actual dialogue. In spite of my original comment being modded all the way to 5, he's used a bunch of sock-puppets to take it all the way back to -1, because 'Flamebait'. It seems we're supposed to remain civil when told to: 'Suck it, bitch.'

Touché...

... And the image of a dungeoness crab will remain with me till my dying day.

Dungeness crab, on the other hand, tend to disappear from my table in moments.

No, he means 'club'. The Mets frickin' hate systemd.

You do get that the FOSS community is in its very essence about consultation? That consultation and cooperation are the only fucking way this whole fucking open source thing is going to work?

Yes, people get shirty when their input is ignored. No, it is not fucking FUD when we say, 'You have no right to ignore the complaints of roughly half of everyone who actually gives a shit about this topic.' It is not FUD when people highlight at length and in detail the many, many ways that systemd's design sucks.

Maybe systemd will get better. Most software does. But until its developers grow up enough to actually argue the thing on its merits and not simply to dismiss every criticism as aversion to change, it's going to face strident opposition.

I mean this in all sincerity: Good for you.

Let's be clear about this, though: When you say 'those things', you're referring to those specific things that you and your company did. Because there is a very large volume of life-changing —and life-saving— software that came about without any thought of recompense, and with very different ideas about copy-protection and ownership.

Again, in all sincerity: Good for you and your wife.

Having traveled in first class, I found it to be full of pampered, self-important twits with more money than sense, but hey, it wouldn't exist if there weren't a demand for it. I'll take business class myself, thanks.

Ah, the famous 'I'm all right, Jack' defence. Astonishingly, this self-aggrandising approach to entitlement doesn't breed a lot of sympathy among those of us who have other considerations than ourselves. But that's okay. I've saved lives, you've saved lives —that's what counts. At the end of the day, the fact that the lives I saved were in the developing world and yours (probably mostly) weren't is not going to count for much when we're both rotting in the ground. The fact that I'm largely at peace with myself and don't get too exercised about what people do with the fruits of my labours is likely secondary as well. I daresay you're pretty content, too.

But there is this: My way of living and doing business is just as workable as yours, and my way doesn't serve only the rich. So fuck you, you self-satisfied, closed-minded, smug little shit. You think there's no other way but yours? You're wrong and I'm living proof.

Er, no. Where did you get that idea? Perl has distinct array and hash data types, and though Perl has a liberal approach to reading variable values ('$scalar = @array' does... interesting things, for example), there is a clear distinction between the two.

Feh, easy:

Porn porn porn porn porn porn porn porn porn porn porn porn porn porn work porn porn porn porn porn work work porn porn porn porn porn...

(This is another paragraph that does not use repetition to make its point because Slashdot's lameness filter is rearing its ugly head again.)