On Fri, 5 May 2000, Ken Hornstein wrote:


# Okay, I've stayed silent on this subject, but _this_ is rather annoying.
# 
# >From my point of view, a new startup system was proposed.  Various
# people made comments about it.  I fully believe that the general
# consensus was that the new system was a good thing.

What are you smoking?  I haven't seen a general consensus stating anything
to that direction.

# There were some
# objections to it, but IMHO they were in the minority.  Yes, they
# were particularly vocal and repeated objections, but I'm sorry ...
# they were firmly in the minority, and the number of messages sent
# about this topic doesn't change that.

Granted considering they came from roughly the same direction each time.
But the thing is that those of us who do dissent have been told, more or less,
that our opinions don't matter.

# A decision had to be made.  The decision that was choosen was in line
# with what I believe most people would agree to being the general
# consensus.  I don't see how that is fascism.

Because this "general consensus" has not materialized.  I and several others
made a proposal which would not have been terribly difficult to maintain or
code, and it has been discarded out of hand because a smaller group of people
who happen to have clout and the power to commit things to the tree have
decided that their way is much better.  So much for "consensus".  This was
a fiat, not a consensus.

I have seen _more_ _different_ _people_ sending in a disagreement of the
proposed direction than I have seen agreement!  Where does this constitute
that more people agree?  Is the fact that most people have remained silent
on the issue a demonstration of consent?  There's more dissent here than
agreement, and there's more apathy, it seems, than either.  But silence
does NOT equal consent, no matter how you look at it.

The thing that I find insulting - again - is that no matter what arguments
are brought up, no matter how well thought out they are, no matter how well
based in working fact, the dissenters are being told that the arguments are
not valid.

# I'm not saying that mob rule is ideal either, but IMHO most of the
# arguments against the new startup system boiled down to religion; it
# just so happens that the religion choosen is the more popular one.
# Somebody _had_ to lose on this one.

It's more than religious, it's technical.  Editing a splintering of files
is a PAIN IN THE GOD DAMNED ASS compared to being able to edit one file.

Or hasn't that sunk in yet?

a "virc" is a solution looking for a problem.  Well, congratublastedlations,
folks, you've just created the problem.

The proposal - again - is simple, and rather easy.  You can have it in two
places, with a tool to bring either place in sync with the other should they
disagree, and you can choose which place will have precedence over the other.
This would make it easy for the third party stuff to auto-install, and it
would preserve ease of HUMAN ADMINISTRATION OF A SYSTEM, DEPENDING ON
PREFERENCE.

And I frankly find it rather insulting that a matter of technical merit
is being dismissed as religious.

Some folks who are here have migrated from running that POS called IRIX.
Some of us have had to administrate other OSs whose configurations have been
a nightmare, and up to the rc.d split, that nightmare had not managed to
manifest itself inside NetBSD.  And now it's here, quite a few of us object,
and we are not being acknowledged in the least.  Who are you, collectively,
that you can just turn around and piss on your user community like that?
In the past, objections were at least addressed.  If you can't address the
objections, or choose to ignore them, you're no better than the software
giants from whom we sought herein to take refuge.

If you're going to put something like this in place, I strongly recommend
that you make it possible to choose which mechanism you prefer to use.
This should NOT be dictated by the distribution.

The conversation thus far has consisted of:

"A new rc.conf.d is in the works...any suggestions?"

	"Make it possible to choose which source overrides what."

"Going once..."

	"Hello?"

"Going twice..."

	"At least give the sites the choice of how to configure their--"

"In it goes with no objections."

# --Ken

Now I'm sorry for raising so many hackles -- in fact, I feel like I'm making
enemies, which is something I don't like doing.  But I have been more than
reasonable and patient in my propositions and my requests; yet, I feel that
those OTHERS of us who disagree (I am NOT the only one) with the action and
the attitude taken have not been acknowledged at all.  And that is the wrong
attitude of a core group to take towards its user base.  You Just Don't
DO That.  My patience has snapped and I have felt no other recourse than
to get very vocal about it.  That no alternatives have even been considered
suggests to me the very height of arrogance which so many of us have bemoaned
in Microsoft.  This is certainly not a BSDish approach to things.

I wish to state that I mean no personal affronts toward people as people;
my gripe is toward the people AS IMPLEMENTORS, CHANCELLORS AND AMBASSADORS
of what has been one of the highest-quality code bases on the Internet.
If I show up to a BUG meeting anywhere (which I hope to), you may go ahead
and take me to task in person.

I can only hope that my concerns will not go unheeded.  And I get the feeling
that I do _not_ speak for only myself.

				--*greywolf;