Systemd and ConsoleKit [LWN.net]

Systemd and ConsoleKit

Posted May 4, 2011 18:11 UTC (Wed) by jubal (subscriber, #67202)
In reply to: Systemd and ConsoleKit by raven667
Parent article: Systemd and ConsoleKit

I'm excited about it anyway :-)

I'm a bit more cautious here. Perhaps because of a somewhat interesting systemd developers' attitude [I'm not particularly fond of the «we've seen the truth, so it's our way or highway» methodology of engaging the end-users (the end-users being in this case daemon developers and packagers)].

(Log in to post comments)

Systemd and ConsoleKit

Posted May 4, 2011 21:42 UTC (Wed) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]

Although to be fair in this case, they already included the needed functionality to handle this use case even though the stated preference was for the daemon to handle this kind of checking and init by itself.

Heck, I've run DJB software for the last decade, developers who have "seen the truth" don't scare me :-)

Systemd and ConsoleKit

Posted May 5, 2011 0:35 UTC (Thu) by mezcalero (subscriber, #45103) [Link]

Really, you don't want to allow us a belief how service should best be written?

I mean seriously, if we wouldn't have an opinion on that, i.e. a vision how things should be done in an ideal world, then we'd be useless as software designers.

Systemd and ConsoleKit

Posted May 5, 2011 21:11 UTC (Thu) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]

AOL :-)

It's the self-opiniated developer, convinced that he's right, that either races down a dead end to oblivion, or drags everyone after him kicking and screaming that they "don't want to be forced to do the right thing"!

Look at me - much as I find relational theory very useful, I think relational *technology* is a dead end - a cancerous waste of resources that *cannot* work - because it ignores reality.

Am I going to drag everyone down the road I want? I'm not a Poettering, I don't think I'm going to pull it off. But it's people like him, people like me, who make others re-evaluate. And I must admit, I like Poettering's approach - "it'll only work properly if it's done right". Why *shouldn't* he take broken stuff, and break it even more? If the end result is things actually work properly, then well done!

Cheers,
Wol