From: MikeE@ster.invalid   
      
   bad sector wrote:   
   > It ain't systemd VS all-others, it's more like all inits where systemd   
   > is one of many. I might keep 2 suse, that's already double the just and   
   > democratic allotment :-)   
   >   
   > As for more than one 'mere utility' that seems to be jockeying to become   
   > a kernel or an almost-OS, my attitude is rapidly hardening. The danger   
   > as far as I'm concerned is that one of thsese becomes too big for its   
   > hide and starts dictating kernel development which would mean the end of   
   > freedom Linux.   
      
   In some imaginary scenario, there would be some 'optimal' balance   
   between the freedom to innovate another way of doing things and the   
   'negative' effects of a lot of fractured directions in which the   
   fracturing or innovations aren't resulting in a trend toward 'mostly'   
   good.   
      
   FreeBSD vs linux, systemd vs non-systemd vs systemd+shim, various DEs &   
   WMs awaiting the dev of a Rust Cosmic and so forth.   
      
   I'm not exactly saying there are too many DEs or that there shouldn't be   
   a systemd schism, just that it - the mulitiplicity - isn't ALL good;   
   there is good and bad to the divisions and fractures.   
      
   --   
   Mike Easter   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)