[CoffeeDregs]

    Now that it's been adopted, using that supposed
    compatibility is "doing it wrong".

It has only been adopted in non-Stable distributions of Debian... I haven't seen anyone belittle anyone over "compatibility concerns"; I have seen folks belittled (especially in this thread) when they complain about imperfect stability in distributions which are not Stable.

At the risk of appealing to authority, I'd be interest to see posts from Debian/Ubuntu maintainers in which they express frustration at the various problems systemd is causing them. I haven't seen any and would appreciate hearing from them or getting some links to their posts.

EDIT: clarified area of "belittlement"...

[nknighthb]

You said elsewhere:

> I run Debian Testing and was able to upgrade ~5 machines without a hitch.

So which is it? Is systemd in Debian hitch-free or not? Or do you only care about your own systems and no one else's?

> I have seen folks belittled

Meaning you've already lost the argument.

> I'd be interest to see posts from Debian/Ubuntu maintainers

Yeah. Screw users, right?

systemd, land of ever-shifting rhetoric. You guys should get out of the software development business and run for Congress.

[bkor]

It seems you're rather upset with people who like systemd. That's fine. However, you're putting a lot of words into my mouth. I like systemd.

According to you because I like systemd: - my opinion is "screw users" - belittled you with compatibility concerns - arguments are nothing more than rhetoric.

I find such discussion style rather poor. Instead of diving people into pro/con or black/white (with us or against us), try expressing things a bit more granular. Further, it seems you're out to win arguments by selectively quoting and changing the meaning of what you've quoted.

If there are bugs in systemd, they have to be fixed. I'm one of the biggest systemd advocates. This combined proves you are incorrect on what people liking systemd say or suggest.

[Karunamon]

If there are bugs in systemd, they have to be fixed.

Philosophically, yes. Realistically? The behavior of some of the people on the systemd bug tracker[1] is the single most convincing argument against adopting it.

It might break things? Sure, it's a pretty massive change.

People are going to have to re-learn how to do a lot? Again, it's a pretty fundamental shift in a lot of ways. This is expected.

The developers will fucking backtalk you[2] and make political issues out of clearcut things? Uh.. no. That's forkworthy behavior. That's dysfunctional enterprise behavior, which is something I'd imagine the average hacker hates instinctually.

And sure, in the end, those bugs were addressed, but it took an outburst from Linus and widespread, public coverage (and I'm sure no small amount of offline discussion among the systemd folks) for it to happen.

Poettering is on record as wondering why systemd attracts so much hate. He only need look in the mirror.

[1]: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76935

[2]: http://www.muktware.com/2014/04/linus-torvalds-happy-systemd...

[bkor]

That bugreport is often misunderstood. You only gave one example, and that example is flawed. The bugreport was to change systemd behaviour to avoid a kernel bug. The bug should be fixed at kernel, that is why the notabug was there. Further, it is ack'ed that this should've been handled much better.

I have seen loads and loads of examples where "no" is said in some email conversation based on technical arguments.

> And sure, in the end, those bugs were addressed,

The bug was fixed in systemd git before Linus got involved.

> Poettering is on record as wondering why systemd attracts so much hate. He only need look in the mirror.

Here you're being an ass. This bugreport was not handled by Lennart. Lennart is also not talking about disliking systemd, he's talking about people taking things way too far towards him. He talked about people raising money to hire an assassin.

[Karunamon]

The bugreport was because systemd misused the kernel command line. If your code causes something else to break, it is your code's fault!

[not_with_retard]

It was a bug in the kernel, as Torvalds has already admitted.

"Something else" shouldn't break in the first place.

It's obvious you're not a programmer.

[nknighthb]

Your comment begins with bald-faced lie. I have said nothing about "people who like systemd". You follow it up with another lie, that "according to [me]" your opinion is "screw users".

It is sad but totally unsurprising that you can't find ways to advocate for systemd without stating obvious lies about its detractors.

[bkor]

"Time and again proponents of systemd"

I find it rather obvious you have something against anyone liking systemd. After above quote, you followup with "screw users". I like systemd, you react in the same silly way to me. Overly aggressive, pretending to be a saint, while painting me with a broad brush, while saying I'm doing that. I find you a little bit crazy.

[nknighthb]

> I find it rather obvious you have something against anyone liking systemd.

I find it rather obvious that you either don't know what "proponent" means, or you can't distinguish between one who likes something and one who advocates for something. Either way, you are being extremely offensive. Unlike systemd proponents, I don't care what other people like. I care what they try to force me to use.

> After above quote, you followup with "screw users".

I also find it rather obvious you don't have any concept of context. "screw users" was in response to someone who clearly stated they cared about maintainers, not users.

[nisa]

From the "About" page on complete.org (OP):

> I am a developer for the Debian GNU/Linux operating system, and have been since the late 1990s