On 08-10-2014 15:25, Les Mikesell wrote:
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?
Really? Are you really comparing this to technology stuff?
Anyway, hands down if you still use one of the very first mobile phones
and not a smartphone, or if your laptop is 10, 20 years old.
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.
That's very subjective. There were those who loved LPRng and those who
couldn't bare with it, which saw salvation on CUPS (like me).
The only thing in common between both was the lpr/q commands and that
they "manage printing", because everything else was different. Today
LPRng is long gone..
It's not saying that it is "bad", but that we can do more, and for that
we can't have all that backward compatibility altogether. It's already
very hard to QA just the new bits, imagine with everything combined.
IMHO better do one way and do it good.
Marcelo
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...
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
