Re: Linux Future
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 08:16:40PM +0100, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 02:57:58PM +0100, Svante Signell wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-01-22 at 14:41 +0100, Adam Borowski wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:06:16PM +0100, Pau Garcia i Quiles wrote:
> > > > This blogpost is months old but it makes some interesting reflections:
> > > > http://www.pappp.net/?p=969
> > > It appears to be the most insightful thing about systemd vs the rest of the
> > > world I've ever read. READ IT, FOLKS!
> > Worthwhile to read, definitely.
>
> Confirmation bias?
No, it's something in the middle. Those who dislike systemd say it
exaggerates systemd's claimed benefits, while Joss considers it an attack
as well. Let's no go there for now.
What makes this article worth reading is that it points out _why_ systemd
is so controversial.
There are two ways to design a system:
* a monolithic well-integrated system, granting features and efficiency at
the cost of portability and hackability
* the traditional Unix way, with a stress on replaceable tools that do only
one thing, granting freedom to tinker, using the system in a way not
envisioned by its creators
Thus, it's not about whether sysvinit, upstart or systemd is better at a
particular job, it's about whether benefits are worth making it hard to
change.
--
ᛊᚨᚾᛁᛏᚣ᛫ᛁᛊ᛫ᚠᛟᚱ᛫ᚦᛖ᛫ᚹᛖᚨᚲ
Reply to: