Re: End of hypocrisy ?
On Mon 04 Aug 2014 at 18:28:44 -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Aug 2014 14:03:35 +0200
> Raffaele Morelli <raffaele.morelli@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > I've seen tons of posts sent to this list about systemd... bla bla
> > bla... and did not understand what's the matter with it.
> >
> > I wonder what are you all doing with your init scripts which doesn't
> > work with systemd. So what?
> >
> > /r
>
> I can answer that with two reasons:
>
> 1) Binary log files. If you can't see what a radical departure that is
> from the world of Unix, look again.
Looked twice. It is a radical departure.
> 2) Gratuitous interdependency. Part of the Unix Philosophy is that
> programs should "do one thing and do it well." The user assembles a
> functionality from many such small programs. Up to now, init was
> just init. It started the computer, the /dev and /proc stuff, the
> TTY's and the daemons, then pretty much got out of the way. Now here
> comes systemd, requiring or encouraging even desktop environments to
> require or suggest it.
systemd neither requires nor encourages DEs to use it. It does tempt in
a rather cheeky way, though. So much so that its allure has turned out
to be irresistable to upstream GNOME. Weak-kneeded and impressionable,
the lot of them!
> Imagine if they replaced grep, cut, cat, diff, awk, sed, head, tail,
> ls, and find with ks (stands for Kitchen Sink). You can do anything
> you want with ks, but you need to know all its options and config
> settings, and its myriad of idiosyncracies. And if it has bugs or
> departures from documented behavior, as any program of its size is
> likely to have at one time or another, everything breaks.
Hey, a sparkling idea. We could call the program "busybox" and try to
get it into d-i. Now, would it catch on elsewhere?
> So whether stuff works with systemd isn't the main problem, it's just
> icing on the cake when it *doesn't* work.
Yummy.
Reply to: