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.