[edited to put the interesting stuff at the top, and the boring stuff at the bottom where it's easily ignored.] On Sat, Oct 01, 2016 at 08:05:31PM +1000, russell@coker.com.au wrote:
Bash is still quite a bit bigger than busybox and links with a couple of libraries that busybox doesn't link with. Systems which run busybox typically run a smaller shell than bash.
yes, but bash does a lot more, and is the lot nicer to use interactively. the point of busybox is to combine primitive implementations of common utilities with a primitive bourne-like shell in a single binary. the busybox shell doesn't even have history recall and editing (which i consider to be essential for any command-line work). the difference between 600K and 1.2MB (or even 2MB or 3MB if a good subset of GNU tar and other GNU tools - the rest of coreutils and find, to start with, maybe sed and awk too) can be made loadable) is minimal, even on small embedded systems these days, most have GBs of storage at least, and hundreds of MB or even a few GB of RAM.. actually, much of the simple stuff you'd normally use sed for can be done in bash anyway, these days. e.g. simple search and replace on variables, with no need to fork sed or something: foo=${str/pattern/replacement} and other variations (see http://tldp.org/LDP/abs/html/string-manipulation.html) only simple shell glob patterns, rather than regex but that's good enough for lots of things. boring stuff below: On Sat, Oct 01, 2016 at 08:05:31PM +1000, russell@coker.com.au wrote:
the dominant majority complaining about how hard done by they are makes me think, "yeah #ALLinitsystemsmatter"
There is no comparison between BLM and init systems.
i guess i'm not in the club of people who are allowed to make farcical analogies relating some group of people to another, despicable group.
The majority of Debian users don't care much which init system is in use.
the majority had no say in it, and probably aren't capable of switching to something else if systemd doesn't meet their needs.
as predicted (but dismissed as needless paranoia at the time), other init systems ARE being deprecated and a few DDs (not many yet, but i don't expect that to last forever) are deliberately dropping sysvinit (etc) support and ignoring or rejecting patches to add such support.
That's what happens when you have a war about something. A lot of the energy that could be devoted to supporting other init systems is spent on the war
so it's OK to break promises because some (other) people said some mean things somewhere along the line? right. i think what actually happened is that they knowingly lied just to get their preferred option approved, and actually had no intention of enabling or even allowing continued support of anything except systemd.
and now everyone wants to just forget it.
actively discriminating against other inits is not "forgetting it" it's fair enough to not make any personal effort to support something you don't use or are not interested in...it's quite another to reject out of hand someone else's contribution to add that support. and "avoiding arseholes" is not a valid excuse - the areseholes aren't the ones submitting patches or otherwise doing useful work. in fact, deliberately rejecting such patches is likely to piss off some of those arseholes, so it fails even at that.
But you have the option to patch things and to run your own repository of patched packages if some DDs don't accept your patches.
that, to put it extremely mildly, is very far from optimal or even reasonable. Debian is a Universal Operating System. It's not just for those who like particular packages or the most popular packages and "up yours" to everyone else - that attitude, more than anything else, is why I am still resisting the move to systemd. i've encountered the attitude before, e.g. with djb-ware, and my warnings about the dead-end nature of qmail back then proved to be exactly right. systemd presents exactly the same kind of one-way conversion danger, once you've switched it will be extremely difficult to switch to anything else By inclination, i'm in the anything-but-systemd camp because systemd is the only one that's actively hostile to other software that it sees as competing with it (now or in future). anything else would be easy to switch away from if it turns out to be a bad idea or have unforeseen flaws. systemd won't be. to me, that's far more important than a few minor improvements (none of which are unique to systemd).
To be fair the haters have had some success in making developers cease
is that really what you think "being fair" constitutes? an "acknowledgement" that the opposite side are actually quite good at being evil?
In this case yes.
i think you're missing something important about the meaning of the word "fair". specifically, "fair" does not ever mean "damning with faint praise"
The people like you aren't on "the opposite side".
loons you have to ignore. anything else just ensures you stay on their radar, and then you'll keep wondering why they keep targetting you. there's really no point in engaging them in any way. craig -- craig sanders <cas@taz.net.au>