Re: stop posting useless cruft and get to work (systemd and Linux are *fundamentally incompatible* -> and I can prove it)
Excerpts from Kevin Toppins's message of 2014-03-26 13:00:22 -0700:
> On 26 March 2014 13:42, Shachar Shemesh <shachar@debian.org> wrote:
> [...]
> > As far as the systemd vs. upstart discussion, I was leaning in upstart (more
> > precisely, against systemd). As such, your email was very interesting to me.
> > Unfortunately, it was unreadable. You said you'll start with background, but
> > instead of providing technical background, you provided meaningless and
> > irrelevant "he said, I said" arguments. Trying to skim ahead to find where
> > the meat starts did not easily detect such a point.
> >
> > At this point, I simply assumed the email had nothing more to say. If I'm
> > wrong, feel free to answer with the technical gist of your arguments. If you
> > want me to read it, please adhere to the following guidelines:
> >
> > No more than one page.
> > No *asterisks* and -> arrows.
> > No references to previous discussions, or other people's arguments
> > for/against systemd.
>
>
> First, here is a version with the asterisks removed. It might be
> visually easier to read.
>
> https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2014/03/msg00449.html
>
>
> Second, some concepts need a lot of information communicated to make
> sense to those who are not already familiar with the concept. We
> don't send people to college for a day and expect them to grasp 4
> years of higher education. There are some limits on Human learning
> that you have to respect.
>
>
> But here is the vastly oversimplified technical argument...
>
> The test of comprehension is... if you cannot put an idea into
> writing, then you do not understand that idea well enough to be of any
> practical use.
>
> If that idea is a program... this means you do not actually have
> control of the program when implemented. Our ability to control
> things is directly dependent on our knowledge of how that thing
> operates. With knowledge, comes the ability to manipulate the thing
> to suite our purposes.
>
> Please, tell me what systemd is, fitting its entire functionality as
> expressed as one single concept. That does not mean it has to be one
> sentence, but it does mean you cannot group different concept together
> and simply give that as an answer. Grouping them together is saying
> what it does, not what it is. Big difference.
Kevin, it would be quite helpful for those who accept this challenge
if you could do the same for the pieces of the stack that systemd is
meant to replace or is (was?) competing with.
So
- Sysvinit is ...
- Upstart is ...
- OpenRC is ...
Or since your argument is that Linux fits into this:
Linux is ...
Thanks.
Reply to: