On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
<marcelo.leitner@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
>>> https://plus.google.com/u/0/+LennartPoetteringTheOneAndOnly/posts/J2TZrTvu7vd
>>
>>
>> But oddly, he didn't even mention that there would be a real simple
>> solution - just add backwards-compatible improvements instead of
>> actively wrecking the interfaces everyone else had depended on for
>> decades.
>
>
> "decades". That, by itself, already calls for an update, no?
No, do you dig a new foundation for your house every 10 years? Trade
in your wife and kids?
> But so did other systems, but they later found out that sometimes you have
> to break this backwards to infinity compatibility in order to get some big
> progress.
Only if the design was bad in the first place. And if the design was
really bad, there wouldn't be any users to infuriate by breaking the
interfaces they use. But the unix design that linux and linux
distributions copied was pretty good, including the way init started
things.
> There is even a name for this break up, and they call it "disruptive
> events", "disruptive technology", etc. When we have such events, you either
> get up to speed, change your market field or.. get rusty...
>
> Sorry man, that's how it works, everywhere. Although many will probably just
> "miss the old days".. yeah..
I doesn't have to be that way. But with free software when it breaks
you get to keep all the pieces.
> Like for firewalld and systemd, as they were already mentioned in here. It's
> hard _just because_ it's different. But wait, wasn't iptables different from
> ipchains? And is nftables going to be as the same as iptables? No, of course
> not. There are features in nftables that you can't put into iptables
> cleanly, so you need a new workflow on it.
Not sure iptables ever got it right in the first place. No one to copy from...
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
