SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A developer affiliated with boycottsystemd.org has announced and released a fork of systemd, sardonically named uselessd.
The gist of it:
uselessd (the useless daemon, or the daemon that uses less... depending on your viewpoint) is a project which aims to reduce systemd to a base initd, process supervisor and transactional dependency system, while minimizing intrusiveness and isolationism. Basically, it’s systemd with the superfluous stuff cut out, a (relatively) coherent idea of what it wants to be, support for non-glibc platforms and an approach that aims to minimize complicated design.
uselessd is still in its early stages and it is not recommended for regular use or system integration, but nonetheless, below is what we have thus far.
They then go on to tout being able to compile on libc implementations besides glibc, stripping out unnecessary daemons and unit classes, working without udev or the journal, replacing systemd-fsck with a service file, and early work on a FreeBSD port (though not yet running).
Responses from the wider Linux community are yet to be heard.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 21 2014, @12:36PM
Don't bother trying to discuss this kind of stuff with chris.alex.thomas. He apparently has a very broken sense of logic and reason.
In another thread of discussion he was saying it's okay to engage in bigotry and intolerance, as long as the target is something or someone he dislikes. His sense of right and wrong appear to be very broken.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 21 2014, @01:00PM
true story
I do not comment that much anymore due to this kind of flawed logic. it is like trying to explain advanced physics to my 6 month old daughter..she just mumbles and drools
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by chris.alex.thomas on Sunday September 21 2014, @01:01PM
ahhhhh, you're the same homophobic asshat from that discussion?
well then I guess you shouldn't be surprised if I tell you to go fuck yourself....I care even less what you think about systemd after you aligned yourself with anti-equality/anti-gay homophobic pricks like in that conversation. Maybe before I would entertain some logical argument you made, but now, I don't care what you say, even if it makes sense.
Don't think that you can come here, criticise me and think you can find allies here just because you and another guy both disagree with me, probably the guy you're replying to is reading your comment disagrees with me AND you....but hopefully he'll agree that you're a homophobic asshat.
it's really weird, it's like you're asking to be respected, whilst totally disrespecting a whole category of people......you really should be ashamed of yourself, but I'm sure you're not. cause you're garbage....Sorry, but I'm not tolerating your intolerance, GTFO....
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 21 2014, @01:10PM
LOL
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 21 2014, @02:58PM
You must respect my disrespect!
(Score: -1, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday September 21 2014, @05:42PM
Faggots! Fags all around! Gay buttsex! Homosexual anal sex! In the alley and bent over a pole! Body Language! [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 21 2014, @08:39PM
I think it's safe to say, we've successfully reached critical mass where we've finally brought over THIS aspect of the old site.
Small improvements :-)
(Score: 2) by khallow on Sunday September 21 2014, @11:11PM
We have a word for your kind of people, "bigot". That means I get to two minute hate you now, k?
(Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday September 21 2014, @05:06PM
Actually he was promoting the idea that gays should have equal rights. In an attempt to distract from the fact that you don't have a rational reason to disagree with him, you did some word-smithing to paint him as a hypocrite. The problem with your approach, and this is probably the reason you were misleadingly vague about it, is that even if you could get your bigot label to stick on him, his views are still many times less bigoted and hate-filled than yours.
If you really want to sort the people here by their sense of right and wrong, you aren't going to like where you land on that list.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by khallow on Sunday September 21 2014, @11:05PM
He may well have been, but his main argument was promoting the idea that you could discriminate against or be intolerant of someone because you have a better or more tolerant viewpoint.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday September 22 2014, @12:14AM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by khallow on Monday September 22 2014, @02:56AM
And we succeeded because that is what he wrote [soylentnews.org].
And for the edification of other readers who might be wondering what your contribution was, they can go here [soylentnews.org].
A leading question for a statement that no one made and no one declared "absurd".
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday September 22 2014, @03:39AM
And we succeeded because that is what he wrote.
You're declaring 'success' because you're fuzzing the terms to label him a hypocrite. If you get your way then you're both bigots, and then you're in no position to criticize him. If you're not on equal footing, then actually that doesn't work well for you either. It's like you don't want to be called a bigot so you're trying to dead-end the debate, but haven't thought much past the ramifications of it.
A leading question for a statement that no one made and no one declared "absurd".
That 'statement that no one made' was a correction of what the AC in that post was trying to claim that guy was doing. For the edification of our readers who are at all curious about this off-topic discussion: You see... the AC made a statement that nobody made either, and my response was to show him that by rephrasing his statement more accurately. Khallow did know and understand this at the time of post and is... again... trying to use word-smithing to wrangle the debate back into his control instead of offering a reasonable rebuttal. Basically that whole thread is an attempt to make somebody vocal about anti-gay behaviour somehow sound worse than the bigoted actions themselves. The critical waypoint of that debate is to make 'bigot' a harshly black-and-white term and declare victory through use of the word hypocrisy. Which, in a highschool debate setting, might be fine. But here there is no substance to back it up, it has barely progressed farther than "the people speaking out about bigotry are bigots!" And where does that get us? Does it address whether or not he should have made the donation? No. Does it address whether or not his employees had a right to bring it up? No. Is it at all relevant to the people who were vocal about whether or not he should stay? Since everybody is now a bigot... Nope! But, hey, at least a correction I made was labeled! That's something, right?
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by khallow on Monday September 22 2014, @04:34AM
What term got "fuzzed"?
What's the basis for claiming that bigots can't criticize? And speaking of "fuzzing" terms, we have you fuzzing "bigots" here since you have yet to mention any bigot-like behavior on my part. Maybe you shouldn't do what you criticize others of doing?
It still is a blatant misrepresentation of the AC's words and a leading question fallacy.
He was paraphrasing what chris.alex.thomas wrote (which I've already quoted). Note also that chris.alex.thomas actually implies that former Mozilla CEO, Brendan Eich was harassing and intimidating people who did nothing wrong. But let us note that didn't happen. He was kicked out for a political donation, not harassment or intimidation. And as a result of that imaginary sin, chris.alex.thomas claims it is ok to hound Brendan Eich (he termed it as hounding generic "bigots" but nobody else was ever mentioned as being hounded).
And I think that's a good point to remember here. The anti-bigot bigotry was worse than the alleged bigotry that they were protesting. After all, it cost someone their job.
I can't do your thinking for you. You have to figure out why we wrote what we wrote on your own. But as long as you keep trying to shoehorn other peoples' opinions and arguments into these ridiculous little pigeonholes, you won't be able to understand why people just don't always agree with you.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Monday September 22 2014, @04:54AM
It still is a blatant misrepresentation of the AC's words and a leading question fallacy.
Correction, yadda yadda yadda.
But let us note that didn't happen. He was kicked out for a political donation, not harassment or intimidation.
Are you, at all, familiar with what his donation was used for?
The anti-bigot bigotry was worse than the alleged bigotry that they were protesting. After all, it cost someone their job.
His voluntary resignation was worse than the years a lot of same sex couples could not get married? Seriously?
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 22 2014, @08:48AM
He didn't do it himself, but he did pay other people for doing so.
We also put people in prison for hiring a hitman, even though they didn't fire the bullet themselves.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Monday September 22 2014, @10:42AM
Recall that the donation was advocacy for a California ballot initiative - not harassment or intimidation. He didn't do what he was accused of, even by proxy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 22 2014, @01:00PM
According to Wikipedia, you are wrong. That ballot was about proposition 8, the attempt change the legal system to consider non-straight people as not humans, thus not qualified for human rights (such as equality under the law, including those pesky marriage laws).
Harassment by government is one of the worst kinds of harassment, because the people you are supposed to turn to (e.g. the police) are part of the harassing side.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Tuesday September 23 2014, @02:25AM
I'm not interested in what "Wikipedia" has to say when it's clear that's not what Proposition 8 does.