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This discussion has been archived.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 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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (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.