>Upstream as in it's included in the distribution but not primarily developed there.
Your claim was that most of the BSD's was from a shared upstream, with a few patches, and then listed things like OpenZFS and DTrace as examples, which again to my knowledge is only supported on FreeBSD of the BSD's... ?
>make from NetBSD, a driver from OpenBSD.
And lots of drivers from Linux as well, heck given that all but FreeBSD default to using GCC, I'd guess they (the different BSD flavors) have more code (as in lines) in common with a typical Linux distro than with eachother.
>IMHO defaults matter a lot. Sure, I can also turn it off with a small edit but then I need to remember the machines where it's on or off and I'm often don't have root.
But again it's the distros who choose the actual defaults you as a user will have, your distro is your actual upstream, not the systemd project.
>defaults related to the distro release...
Which is the same with differences between the BSD's, or different OS'es in general, which is what a distro is, a set of components combined in to an operating system.
>How is this a nonsense statement?
Because there is no objective definition on what constitutes as 'good reasoning' in this context, it's all subjective, depending on your needs/preferences.
>and I'm sure that you experience systemd as a godsend for a lot of stuff that eases your life.
Actually the impact for me has been minimal, slightly faster boot, slightly faster shutdown, and easier log examination.
> But again it's the distros who choose the actual defaults you as a user will have, your distro is your actual upstream, not the systemd project.
This is a dichotomy that does not exist in practice. It's the same people "upstream" as "downstream". In the cases of Debian, Ubuntu, and Arch, for examples, the distribution's listed maintainers are also systemd developers.
Not that one should take this as singular to systemd. The idea that there's some form of Chinese wall between a package's own developers and its maintainers at the various distributions is not reality in a number of places. Take mediawiki, for example. The person seeking to package it up and be its maintainer for Debian in 2016 is a Wikimedia Foundation software engineer.
>This is a dichotomy that does not exist in practice. It's the same people "upstream" as "downstream".
I believe that's nonsense. Out of all the software being packaged in all the distros out there, I would say only a very small amount is actually being packaged by people who are also upstream developers, there are LOTS of distros and LOTS and LOTS of packages out there.
>In the cases of Debian, Ubuntu, and Arch, for examples, the distribution's listed maintainers are also systemd developers.
systemd is a quite large project, some 250+ different committers, and from what I've read, neither Debian, Ubuntu or Arch will use the new default of shutting down user processes upon logout, despite them having upstream systemd developers responsible for the distro packaging.
> This is a dichotomy that does not exist in practice. It's the same people "upstream" as "downstream". In the cases of Debian, Ubuntu, and Arch, for examples, the distribution's listed maintainers are also systemd developers.
> I believe that's nonsense.
You can believe that if you like, but yours isn't a belief in any way founded in fact. Tomasz Torcz's 2014 lists of the top systemd developers includes the Debian, Ubuntu, and Arch maintainers.
Your claim was that most of the BSD's was from a shared upstream, with a few patches, and then listed things like OpenZFS and DTrace as examples, which again to my knowledge is only supported on FreeBSD of the BSD's... ?
>make from NetBSD, a driver from OpenBSD.
And lots of drivers from Linux as well, heck given that all but FreeBSD default to using GCC, I'd guess they (the different BSD flavors) have more code (as in lines) in common with a typical Linux distro than with eachother.
>IMHO defaults matter a lot. Sure, I can also turn it off with a small edit but then I need to remember the machines where it's on or off and I'm often don't have root.
But again it's the distros who choose the actual defaults you as a user will have, your distro is your actual upstream, not the systemd project.
>defaults related to the distro release...
Which is the same with differences between the BSD's, or different OS'es in general, which is what a distro is, a set of components combined in to an operating system.
>How is this a nonsense statement?
Because there is no objective definition on what constitutes as 'good reasoning' in this context, it's all subjective, depending on your needs/preferences.
>and I'm sure that you experience systemd as a godsend for a lot of stuff that eases your life.
Actually the impact for me has been minimal, slightly faster boot, slightly faster shutdown, and easier log examination.