[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141225045606.GC13509@openwall.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 2014 07:56:06 +0300
From: "(GalaxyMaster)" <galaxy@...nwall.com>
To: owl-users@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: owl-startup
Piotr,
First of all, thank you for the elaborate response. I'll comment on it
in full a bit later. Please see my brief comments below.
On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 01:21:05PM +0100, Piotr Meyer wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 21, 2014 at 07:39:10AM +0300, (GalaxyMaster) wrote:
> [...]
> > do my job properly I had to learn the design of that framework and it
> > really looks logical and once you jump through the hoops of the learning
> > curve you cannot deny that Poettering and Co did a huge amount of work
> > to standardise the startup & init process. The documentation is also
> > _very_ good.
>
> I'm not a Owl developer but as a person very interested in systemd
> development history and whole integration process I strongly disagree
> with your opinion.
I think you are confused. My opinion (if any) was that a) developers
invested a lot of effort and b) the documentation is good. I never
advocated that it's a panacea and also I said that it "looks logical"
not that it indeed is.
My point of bringing this discussion on (as you may see from my reply to
croco@) is that we should do something about that. Either to commit
that we are strongly against getting systemd into Owl or try to pick the
most important parts from that so-called platform to keep compatible
with the rest of RH-based distros.
Anyway, thanks for your original reply -- I'll properly reply a bit
later.
--
(GM)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
