Re: systemd-free alternatives are not off topic.
On 25/11/14 03:13, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 11/24/2014 10:05 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>> On 25/11/14 00:25, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> On 11/24/2014 2:56 AM, Scott Ferguson wrote: <snip>
>>>>> Yes, and while the Linux community continues, Debian will
>>>>> lose a lot of dedicated users due to this decision.
>>>>> Possibly another fork, or possibly another distro. But
>>>>> Debian will lose users.
>>>>
>>>> 1. At best that's pure speculation. With all due respect to
>>>> Gypsy Rose Lee (who is really just a naughty boy), some of us
>>>> "engineer types" place little stock in soothsaying.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is more than speculation. Read the posts here - some people
>>> (including me) are already looking for alternatives. And so are
>>> many companies I know of who have looked at jessie.
>>
>> 1. Like most things, that's relative. In this instance to the
>> number of readers and "users":- https://lwn.net/Articles/620441/
>> and, see my comments further down about "churn" (if I was overly
>> tired and emotional I might write "they're your ball, you know
>> where your home is?", "empty promises", and, "what's second
>> prize?". But I'm not 'that' tired and emotional).
>>
>> 2. Fore-telling the future, especially when the basis for future
>> extrapolation is *not* based on *any* (supplied and confirm-able)
>> facts - is assumption (not presumption - which generally,
>> pre-supposes 'some' evidence, of which you provide none (which
>> doesn't preclude the possibility you will at a later stage).
>> "Presumption" is distinct from "assumptions". (not to imply you are
>> cognitively impaired, just in awareness that this is not a 1:1
>> communication)
>>
>
> It is not an assumption nor a presumption or prediction. Several
> people here (including me) have already indicated they are
> abandoning Debian for another distro or BSD. So have most of my
> customers who are currently using Debian. It is a fact.
Lacking evidence - it remains *not* a fact. Feel free to amnend the
world's dictionaries to adjust to you "stated belief".
>
>> 3. "companies" that you 'know '"have looked at Jessie" (which is
>> not yet a Stable release) is like "secret attorneys" - not
>> demonstrable facts and of dubious relevance. An unintentional
>> oversight on your part I 'suspect'. I may be alone in the desire
>> to not start jumping at shadows (or hanging monkeys in sailor
>> suits) - that 'may' (based on historical precedence) only lead to
>> burning witches and people that don't look like the tribal
>> patriarch.
>>
>
> By contract, I am not allowed to specify which of my customers are
> running what. If you've ever been a consultant, you should be aware
> of non-disclosure agreements; they are a standard part of almost
> every consulting contract I've ever signed.
I'm familiar with the concepts - and won't indulge in juvenile urinary
sports that don't further the basic contention of what is an is not a
demonstrable fact.
>
> But that does not mean they are not jumping ship.
Agreed. Nor does plans for fighting an invasion of Martians. The only
relevance is that they are both speculation of what is allegedly
possible - conflated with likely, and having no relevance to *2.*
>
>>>
>>>> 2. It's false logic to conclude *only* losses from change (and
>>>> duplicitous to deny that systemd is your only choice) - it
>>>> overlooks the possibility that the additional *choice* of
>>>> systemd will attract more users (and more instances - you do
>>>> know that many "administrators" manage large numbers of
>>>> instances, right?). There is no evidence to show that other
>>>> distros and projects that adopted systemd as the *only* choice
>>>> lost users - quite the reverse.
>>>>
>>>
>>> These are the ones who are abandoning Debian.
>>
>> Citation? "These" is a, um, little vague.
>>
>
> As I said - contracts forbid me from giving specifics. But I'm sure
> you'll use that to say they don't exist. They do, however.
Like secret attorneys and Santa Claus. I don't/won't cite clients with
similar contractual obligations because:-
; it's not relevant
; it's unsubstantiated-able (probably not a work, I'm jet-lagged)
; it denigrates those without a financial consideration as a major
factor in their motivations
>
>>> Some of them came to Debian because it was one of the last
>>> holdouts.
>>
>> Is that a reference to a term used in a television show about the
>> fictitious "Wild West"? I can only apologise of my ignorance of
>> "popular culture" (long story - I haven't watched "television" in
>> several decades - did I miss something important?).
>>
>
> No, it has nothing to do with TV.
Then it just doesn't translate into English English.
>
>> Never-the-less I suspect what you refer[*1] to is what is called
>> "churn". Tyre-kickers, testers, those that don't want to/don't
>> have the time/capacity to learn sufficient skills, those that lack
>> the motivation/capacity to decide for them selves and "go with the
>> flow" (of the noisiest) - as some might say - like dead fish. None
>> of which would be clients of your "business" - though admittedly
>> I'm guessing at your business model and mean no undue disrespect
>> to you as a Veteran Unix Administrator. (it's late, I'm tired,
>> please forgive any clumsy wording and a total lack of editorial
>> review, be assured I've endeavoured to extend the same courtesy).
>>
>
> It is not churn. Companies don't change distros on a whim;
Your experience differs from mine - both in the USA and Australia. At a
guess I'd say Telstra/JN (the latter to which I'm currently
contractually bound but which have not made my employment secret v.s.
secret companies) that we'll have to agree to disagree.
> it is very expensive to install and test new software.
Agreed.
If they have to train
> people on that new software, the cost increases.
Agreed.
> Therefore, every software installation is carefully examined before
> even attempting to install it.
Also agreed. I've heard of this "change control" and "accounting" thing.
>
> For instance - in the case of upgrading a Debian package, it means
> looking at the documentation with that package and, in the case of
> release changes to the base product, the documentation to those
> changes. It them means installing on a test system and running a
> long series of tests. And when the system is being upgraded, every
> package being upgraded has to be examined. Then the new code is
> installed on test servers and checked for interoperability with
> existing code.
It's called "change control". ITIL is not new to the USA (hint: I work
there).
<snipped>
>>> But they see the way Debian is going also, and don't like it.
>>
>> Objection - remains supposition *until* you supply evidence. I
>> don't doubt you don't "like it" (shades of Fffacefriend and primary
>> school??)But... there are many things I don't like, *I*'ll spare
>> you, and other readers further expansion on them.
>>
>
> I was correct. You're already asking for names - which I already
> indicated I cannot supply. So you just dismiss my statements.
Yes. And I don't supply argument I can't back - only fair don't you think?
>
> Just because I can't name names does not mean they don't exist.
Just because I don't have pictures and fingerprints of "Santa Claus"
doesn't mean he doesn't exist either. Possibility != Probability. I'm
sure you don't mean to act like a child - it's likely unintentional.
>
>>> They'll probably end up on BSD.
>>
>> Not necessarily a bad thing. BSD (a generic for a diversity of
>> distributions, can use love - providing that those disenfranchised
>> refugees that you refer to:- ;exist ;provide love
>>
>
> And none of those distros use systemd - which for them is a good
> thing.
None of those distros *can* use systemd, which is as moot a point as
your FUD that presupposes you are forced to use systemd on Linux.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure, people who only run software in .deb packages won't be
>>>>> hit as hard.
>>>>
>>>> At all. And then only if *they* don't elect to stay with sysv.
>>>>
>>>> But that is definitely not the entire Debian user base.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I never said it was the entire Debian user base.
>>
>> Nor did I say you did. Please don't put words in my mouth.
>>
>
> You intimated at it.
No, best intentions assumed - you imagined that. Intelligent readers can
review the thread and make their own interpretations.
>
>>> But even staying with sysv is only a temporary situation.
>>
>> In your "prediction" of *future* events. Which is dependant on
>> "Debian" ceasing to do what Debian has done for more than two
>> decades - overcome difficulties and adapt to change (an
>> instructive guide to coping, and profiting from change, don't you
>> think?)
>>
>
> They see the way the TC and GRs have gone, and don't like it.
Assuredly, *some* do. Likewise *some* believe in shape-shifting lizard
aliens and the CIA blowing up the Twin Towers. Best not to let fringe
groups dictate the course for a majority I think.
> They are making the decision to move now while they have plenty of
> time, instead of later when they are forced to do so under limited
> time constraints.
Apropos of what? I see no evidence of anyone stopping them - or you. You
build the cross and hammer your own nails. Enjoy the view but don't
expect me to plunge the spear.
>
>>> They see the handwriting on the wall
>>
>> Daniel[*2] or Omar Khayyám? [confused, but still keen to learn]
>>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_writing_on_the_wall
Did you even read that (hint Daniel 5)? Rhetorical question - clearly
you didn't. Please don't equate "I Googled it" with actual understanding.
>
>>> - whether you agree with it or not.
>>
>> For the record - 'I' don't. On the basis of I've seen no evidence,
>> in spite of extensive research and carefully open-minded view, of
>> any factual support for the proof of soothsaying or prophecy (I was
>> disappointed to discover that Uri Geller was a fraud, but I
>> digress). In light of "assume the best intentions" I invite you to
>> provide evidence to the contrary. Please.
>>
>
> The TC and GR votes, to start with. And like it or not, systemd is
> taking over the Linux world;
Please - enough "end of the world" scenarios. Duane Gish wants his
"debating strategy" back. You've been extended extreme assumptions of
best intentions - not a licence to troll and spew FUD. I seriously doubt
this is really Jerry Stuckle, lives across the road from the VA
hospital, or another despicable identity theft of his name -
unfortunately lack of (BP) SPF/DKIM information means I can't check the
sender, and lack of a PGP signature means I can't check the author. Yes
I'm angry that I've been trolled - but not as angry as I am that Jerry's
reputation has been soiled - again.
Will the *real* Jerry Stuckle we all know and respect please speak up?
[posting this anyway as FUD should be countered, and the ostrich
approach to trolling leaves the nether-quarter exposed and serves only
to appease the troll]
<snipped>
Reply to: