Page 4 of 4

Re: DUF is not Debian

PostPosted: 2018-04-07 19:11
by Wheelerof4te
@bw123 and n_hologram
There are some really nice posts on the previous page, and yours in particular are ones of the best seen on this forums as far as I recall.
bw123 wrote: And try to clean up the lame posts with good links to current information, all the while realizing that the posts we make may be obsolete in the future.

This is the first time I see someone actually mentions the fact that information new users seek now may be different than the one found in old answers. As each new Debian version is radically different than the previous one, it makes sense to ask the same question again every once in a while.

In fact, you have countered my original post, and proved that this forum has the quality of Debian itself.

Re: DUF is not Debian

PostPosted: 2018-04-07 19:48
by golinux
Wheelerof4te wrote: As each new Debian version is radically different than the previous one, it makes sense to ask the same question again every once in a while.
There has only been one "radically different" Debian version and that was the move to systemd. The current unholy mess which requires "retraining" replaces code that had remained modular and stable for a very long time. That shift is undoubtedly by design as suggested in n_hologram's excellent summary of the corporate doodoo in which Debian is now buried.

This was foreshadowed by the Gnome/GTK3 fiasco. Same mentality.

Re: DUF is (not) Debian

PostPosted: 2018-04-07 20:05
by Wheelerof4te
^Don't you worry, there is no corporate doodooers in Debi...
*sees Debian on the WSL*
*SCREAMS IN AGONY*

Re: DUF is (not) Debian

PostPosted: 2018-04-07 21:48
by golinux
Wheelerof4te wrote:^Don't you worry, there is no corporate doodooers in Debi...
*sees Debian on the WSL*
*SCREAMS IN AGONY*

I suggest that you research the affiliations of the members of the Debian technical committee.

Re: DUF is (not) Debian

PostPosted: 2018-04-07 22:22
by acewiza
Spoon-feeding babies is how they grow. :wink:

Re: DUF is (not) Debian

PostPosted: 2018-04-08 02:56
by n_hologram
@bw123: with reference to power managing, I only remember a lot of driver issues back in the day. The only issues I used to have were with things like "help, Im a poor college kid and can't buy Linux-compatible hardware."

I dont miss those days.

That said, I'm not aware of any power managing issues that systemd has actually improved, either. My point was more along the lines of, systemd added no noticeable improvements, but did make a bunch of useful documentation obsolete. That isnt a framework I want to endorse.