On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Heiko Baums <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > But I think e.g. regarding the UNIX philosophy he is totally right. And > Yes, I don't like those Windoze like ini files of systemd, too. > Everything is and should stay a file, and every tool should do only > one task but this should be done well. This is, btw., also the KISS > philosophy. Talking about "UNIX philosophy" and "Windoze like ini files" is probably what gets some people going. It is not technical. Yeah, we might agree that UNIX is great and Windows is bad. But in a technical argument, it is just annoying to point to "tradition" and "philosophy" rather than technical facts, regardless of what side of the argument you are on. If you claim that systemd does not follow the UNIX philosophy (I disagree, but whatever), and if you claim that anything not following the UNIX philosophy is bad (I disagree, but whatever), then you should be able to combine these two claims and point to a technical flaw or shortcomming in systemd without any reference to UNIX, or Windows, or KISS at all. > I really regularly wonder why people become offensive if other people > say their opinions and if other people's opinions doesn't match their > own opinions. Personally, I get exasperated when people don't take the time to educate themselves before making broad and incorrect assertions. There is a huge amount of documentation, discussion and other sources of information about systemd available online. Moreover, there is the source-code, and even the packages in Arch one can try out. There really is no excuse. I try not to be offensive, but sometimes my exasperation shows through I guess. -t
