09/11/2014 05:04 PM, Bill Oliver wrote:
On Fri, 12 Sep 2014, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Thu, 2014-09-11 at 17:33 -0500, Dave Ihnat wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 04:30:11PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
There are plenty of complaints that can be *legitimately* leveled
against systemd. The correct way to do this ...
With all due respect, this isn't a matter of filing bug reports.
I've been working on Unix since around 1980; I was teaching Unix
internals
at Bell Labs in Naperville in 1982. I've discussed Ritchie streams with
Ritchie, and hacked the Unix kernel back then. I knocked out cut and
paste--maybe nothing that stunning, but it cost me a lot when I did
it. I
know and understand what the Unix--and, by extension,
Linux--philosophy is.
I've also worked on DOS, and Windows, since their inception, and many
other
operating systems before and after both. I've seen some sensible
decisions--although with either DOS or Windows, I'm hard pressed
right now
to think of them--and some really stupid ideas, such as the Registry.
Systemd is one of the stupid ideas. It flies in the face of everything
that makes sense in Unix or Linux, and incorporates some of the most
amazingly bad ideas Microsoft ever promulgated. A single point of
failure,
an Swiss army knife of totally disparate tasks incorporated in a single
process just because we can...
I didn't pay attention to this until recently; now that I've dug into
it a
bit more, I'm both horrified and astonished that it's reached the
level of
acceptance it has. This is an amazingly terrible concept, with the
unbelievable adjunct that it's been accepted by major Linux distros.
Unchecked, this could be the stake in the heart of Linux. Those who
don't
know history are doomed to repeat it.
Very well put and eminently sensible. This is the kind of argument that
needs to be answered, not how many CVEs there are and where to report
them. If the argument doesn't hold water, then systemd proponents should
explain why (to repeat, *explain* why, not simply assert the contrary
position). If it does, isn't it better to rethink it now than when it's
too late?
poc
Over the years, I've seen what I, at least, have perceived as a change
in the atmosphere around linux. It used to be that the statement of
pride was "we're not like Windows." Then came the movement to increase
the desktop share by looking more and more like Windows. Now there
seems to be this idea that what linux should be is not something
*different,* but essentially an open-source implementation of Windows.
Linux and Windows should be like LibreOffice and Microsoft Office; close
enough so that you don't have to notice the difference.
Systemd is just one more step down that road.
I've been holding my nose and keeping my mouth shut for the last couple
of years but I have to concur. Time was, a signature with `uptime`
showing many hundreds of days, if not multiple years, was a badge of
honor. Now people cavalierly toss out, "... and reboot".
I've been expecting that fedora 95 release notes will peacock the
addition of a start button and a BSOD as a feature. (place whichever
emoticon applies, here)
fedora is dead. Long live fedora.
MWright
--
users mailing list
users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
