On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Gilbert Sebenste
<sebenste@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2014, Lamar Owen wrote:
>
>> Les, this is the wrong question to ask. The question I ask is 'What
>> will be my return on investment be, in potentially lower costs, to run
>> my programs in a different way?' If there is no ROI, or a really long
>> ROI, well, I still have C6 to run until 2020 while I invest the time in
>> determining if a new way is better or not. Fact is that all of the
>> major Linux distributions are going this way; do you really think all of
>> them would change if this change were stupid?
>
> Yes. Look at Microsoft and Windows 8 and a similar attitude of "get over
> it, and just buy it". I'm not surprised that the head developer
Apple is guilty of that too.
> was terminated days after its release. Lemmings think jumping off a
> cliff is a good idea, too. Several designers thinking its a good idea
> and implementing it across the board does NOT mean it's a good idea to the
> end user.
>
>> Even the Unix philosophy was new at one point. Just because it works
>> doesn't mean it's the best that can be found.
>
> The Unix philosophy is not new, but blossomed after Windows put a
> stranglehold on everything else.
>
>> Consistency is not the only goal. Efficiency should trump consistency,
>
> I am darn sick and tired about hearing of "efficiency". Efficiency does
> not 100% translate to effective productivity. Furthermore, user
> satisfaction is not counted into efficiency. I have heard people complain
> about air conditioners with extremely high efficiencies. The problem is
> that they don't put out much cold air. If the product is ineffective,
> very hard to work with, but efficient...I'd far rather use something much
> less cumbersome and effective but being less efficient. That translates
> to higher productivity and satisfaction, which you really want.
> Effectiveness and satisfaction should go hand in hand with efficiency,
> every time.
>
I think you are making the case for maintainability. Efficiency
is in a certain way what brought the Y2K bug. I'll take
maintainability over efficiency any day if I can (design constrains)
even if I was writing a game.
>> (Leaving part of my .sig in for a change, as I'm wearing the CIO hat in
>> this post.)
>
> People will vote with their feet on this. And, that "old white men" are
> complaining about this is ageist, racist, and demeaning to EVERYONE. I am
> really disappointed in Red Hat saying this, far more than the
> whole systemd concerns. As others have stated, change for the sake of
> change isn't good. Slapping across the face your primary customer base
> with deep insults isn't good, even if the customers are horribly wrong,
> which is quite the opposite here. And trying to splash perfume on a
> steaming dogpile is absurd.
>
> Don't worry, if this attitude continues with Red Hat, I won't let my rear
> hit the exit on the way out. And I'll do the best sort of advertising for
> this that I can: tell others the nonsense that is occurring, and to stay
> far away from it...
>
> Gilbert
>
> *******************************************************************************
> Gilbert Sebenste ********
> (My opinions only!) ******
> *******************************************************************************
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
