Re: If Linux Is About Choice, Why Then ...
On Sun, Apr 9, 2017 at 7:20 PM, <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Sun, Apr 09, 2017 at 08:20:16AM +0900, Joel Rees wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> There is no plus to a restricted declaration syntax except the walls
>> between the controlling service and the controlled services. In other
>> words, the minus of separation is the plus of separation.
>
> To be fair, there *is* a plus: with a restricted language, you can be
> sure that some properties of the whole system are maintained. It then
> becomes easier to reason about the whole behaviour. I think it becomes
> a tradeoff.
I think that was what I was trying to say, that the plus is also a
minus and you have to weigh it as a tradeoff.
But you do have to understand, in the weighing, that the restrictions
are not a perfect wall.
Also, I was trying to refer to the restricted dependency declaration
language becoming infrastructure that allows management software to
reliably analyze the dependencies. That was what was not happening
when the shell itself was being used to declare (or search out) the
dependencies.
Assuming that the declaration language is sufficient, the plus side is
that once the declarations are made, the management tools can work on
the dependencies more or less directly.
The minus side includes the problems of new language and the question
of whether it is sufficient, and, as someone else said elsewhere, the
baggage that systemd brings along with the new language.
The language itself could be made independent of systemd, if the
systemd project would cooperate with that.
> regards
> - -- tomás
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAljqCuEACgkQBcgs9XrR2kbADQCcDpqg5P8RMFFFyk4YDUslK22w
> nFAAnAm1/LMIznTSv84Lffg1/AI7319D
> =fNYy
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
--
Joel Rees
I'm imagining I'm a novelist:
http://joel-rees-economics.blogspot.com/2017/01/soc500-00-00-toc.html
More of my delusions:
http://reiisi.blogspot.jp/p/novels-i-am-writing.html
Reply to: