Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by azrael on Sunday September 21 2014, @07:37AM   Printer-friendly
from the use-as-much-as-you-want dept.

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.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Tork on Monday September 22 2014, @12:14AM

    by Tork (3914) on Monday September 22 2014, @12:14AM (#96507)
    That's what you lot tried to turn it into, anyway.
    --
    Slashdolt Logic: "24 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by khallow on Monday September 22 2014, @02:56AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday September 22 2014, @02:56AM (#96560) Journal

    That's what you lot tried to turn it into, anyway.

    And we succeeded because that is what he wrote [soylentnews.org].

    you've got it the wrong way around, hounding bigots because they are bigoted, does not make you a bigot, there are some views which are better than others, not all views are equal.

    equal rights for marriage is a better view than declaring gay marriage an abomination, you can't call me bigoted because I refuse to accept that you're a homophobe and won't accept your views when you're using those views to harass and intimidate people who are doing nothing wrong.

    And for the edification of other readers who might be wondering what your contribution was, they can go here [soylentnews.org].

    "I want people to have equal rights" is absurd?

    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

      by Tork (3914) on Monday September 22 2014, @03:39AM (#96581)

      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?

      --
      Slashdolt Logic: "24 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
      • (Score: 2) by khallow on Monday September 22 2014, @04:34AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday September 22 2014, @04:34AM (#96597) Journal

        You're declaring 'success' because you're fuzzing the terms to label him a hypocrite.

        What term got "fuzzed"?
         
         

        If you get your way then you're both bigots, and then you're in no position to criticize him.

        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?
         
         

        That 'statement that no one made' was a correction of what the AC in that post was trying to claim that guy was doing.

        It still is a blatant misrepresentation of the AC's words and a leading question fallacy.
         
         

        the AC made a statement that nobody made either

        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).

        Basically that whole thread is an attempt to make somebody vocal about anti-gay behaviour somehow sound worse than the bigoted actions themselves.

        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.
         
         

        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?

        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

          by Tork (3914) on Monday September 22 2014, @04:54AM (#96603)

          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?

          --
          Slashdolt Logic: "24 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 22 2014, @08:48AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 22 2014, @08:48AM (#96659)

          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.

          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

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday September 22 2014, @10:42AM (#96681) Journal

            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.

            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

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 22 2014, @01:00PM (#96723)

              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

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 23 2014, @02:25AM (#97003) Journal

                I'm not interested in what "Wikipedia" has to say when it's clear that's not what Proposition 8 does.