On 02/11/14 12:19, Frank McCormick wrote:
On 11/01/2014 08:58 PM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
For the purpose of education not to fan silly semantic pedantics.
On 02/11/14 05:24, Miles Fidelman wrote: <snipped>
Second, we're not talking about vaguely "unixy" - we're talking
about a well developed philosophy of designing things that
dates back to Ken Thompson, et. al (c.f., "The UNIX Programming
Environment,"or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy).
I keep wondering if that's a cause of confusion.
Why does the Linux kernel, GNU, and the rest of userland*have* to
be done "the UNIX" way??
I keep hearing this assertion, but neither Linus Torvalds, or
RMS/seem/ to support it's requirement. Could you expand on why this
is a requirement from the people that produce's point of view??
In this interview he makes it clear he does not think the entire
Linux system has to be done "the UNIX way".
*Which does not answer my question.*
I'm well aware that neither RMS or Linus do not advocate that "Linux,
kerenel and userland" are UNIX, not have to be "the UNIX way".
I'm asking why people keep insisting that systemd is bad
*because it's not the UNIX way*.
It sounds like a strawman - but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt and
asking for clarification.
I'm uncertain of your intention/comprehension of the question Frank -
but your response is not an answer to my question.