Re: Boycott Systemd

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:32 PM, Barry Schwartz
<[email protected]> wrote:
[snip]
> Am I to understand that you are an actual academic and yet consider
> this kind of speech a reasonable discussion of technical issues?

I just said that this thread has *seriously* lacked on technical
arguments. I haven't made almost any technical argument, because
basically all the discussion has been around conspiracy theories about
"evil figures" (not my words), for "profit" companies (again, not my
words), and the infallibility of the Unix "philosophy", in which this
field apparently the arguments "go round and round, however, and never
change"... again, not my words, *yours* actually.

*You* call *that* "a reasonable discussion of technical issues"?

> It is more like an exchange between political candidates or lawyers in
> a courtroom.

I agree. But I just started participating in this thread to expose a
blatantly false claim, that GNOME has systemd as hard dependency. All
that has followed (except for a few precious good comments from Rich
and others), has been like you have described, "an exchange between
political candidates or lawyers in a courtroom".

You in particular ignored my comment about why vertical integration,
non-portability, and binary formats have its merits.

> This is why I don’t even bother to explain how fontconfig is ruining
> everything, even though I can do so in exquisite detail.

No offense, but I do not care about your opinion on fontconfig or
programming languages with built-in provisions against buffer
overflows. However, I would *love* to discuss, in a reasonable way,
about the merits and weakness of systemd.

So bring it on.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Profesor de asignatura, Facultad de Ciencias
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México