[jcadam]

Ah, but did you force others to use your project? People find that sort of thing annoying at best, infuriating at worst, and they will tend to act out in various ways (to include finding fault with the thing they never asked for that's being shoved down their throat).

[scrollaway]

All my life I've been forced to use things such as Windows, Flash, Skype and Photoshop. Forced because of lock-in strategies in a field with difficult alternatives.

"Forced" is not a term that applies to systemd. People say "forced" because their distro adopted it - guess why their distro adopted it? Because they researched it and found it was good. That is the common theme.

Nobody forced you. If you're an arch linux user, for example, one of the distros that switched the earliest, you'd have been more than welcome to discuss counter-points to systemd on the mailing list.

Of course, most of those that attempted doing so were ridiculed out because in free software, or at least on the Arch ML, there is very little tolerance for bullshit. Most (MOST, not all) of the arguments against systemd are in fact bullshit. Hell, even on HN I've seen people crap on systemd because "it's lennartware".

PS: To be clear, there is plenty wrong with systemd. It's far from perfect, it's still very young and I'm not particularly fond of its "all in one" tendencies myself. But most people in this thread have clearly zero ground to comment on its internals, yet many do.

[rdslw]

You're plainly wrong.

1) You write "Most (MOST, not all) of the arguments against systemd are in fact bullshit".

2) And yet you (wrongly) write "there is plenty wrong with systemd"

To be in line with your 1) statement you should write 'it is only small things with systemd which are wrong. Because everything - MOST = small, and not 'plenty'.

Yet you dont do, and you write 'plenty'. Why? Because you know, the moment you write 'there is only a small amount of things wrong with systemd' you will be easily challenged.

So, from logic perspective, you're wrong and you contradict yourself.

[scrollaway]

If you're going to try to use "the logic perspective" and be hostile for the sake of being hostile, at least have the decency of running your own post through that filter. "Everything - most = small" is a mathematically nonsensical statement.

Of course, you could also tone the hostility down before reading my post. Maybe that'd have helped you catch the fact that a flaw in systemd does not necessarily equal an argument against systemd, and vice versa.

6 years on Hacker News and this is what you've learned?

[rdslw]

Let's summarize your post: 1. ad hominem (6 yrs) - completly irrelevant to discussion 2. you don't see difference between disagreement and hostility - is it english, or ego, I dont know 3. you accuses interlocutor who disagrees with you (being me) with hostility - disagreement is not hostility. In fact anybody who thinks that is unable to openly and politely discuss topics. 4. you decdided to skip main argument (while I assume you understand what I meant) and 80% of your post is about attacking me as a person (or math) instead of discussing the essence.

Try to discuss the essence, and don't wrongly accuse people who disagrees with you with 'hostility' plus your ad hominem. Still, take a rest and have a great 2017, I value your contributions to open source.

[scrollaway]

> you don't see difference between disagreement and hostility

Yeah I do though. Consider that maybe you don't see why your post was extremely hostile.

I have very little patience for comments that refuse to do any charitable interpretation and instead end up being "but your post is wrong if taken literally!".

I have even less patience when such a poorly chosen tactic is applied incorrectly.

I've given you the benefit of the doubt and did reply to you (you've again disregarded it). I'll repeat it for clarity: a flaw in x does not necessarily equal an argument against x, and vice versa. Furthermore, "Everything - most = small" is a mathematically nonsensical statement.

Ad for my "6 years" comment, that was not an ad hominem, it was an observation. If you were a fresh account, I would have dismissed your comment as a troll. If you were a fairly new account, I would have thought that maybe you're not used to discussing things on an online social platform. But you have been here, communicating with others for six years; so when you write with such a confrontational tone, you get a confrontational tone back.

[pessimizer]

The first phrase of the first comment you offered on this thread was about how annoying in their ignorance you thought the comments of the people you were replying to were, so you should probably not lecture people on civility at length.

[scrollaway]

I was talking about hostility, not civility. Not that it matters, my original comment was neither hostile nor uncivil. Harsh I'll give you, though if you're going to go around a systemd thread spreading thinly-veiled attacks I expect you to have a thick enough skin to be called out on it.