Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (982 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse] Getting rid of systemd and putting sysv back
On 09/28/2014 10:07 AM, Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
Specifically regarding systemd:
I do not like to be forced to first learn for 5-8 years how to manage
systems, write scripts and then in a very fast transit to just move into
another way of handling things.

It depends on HOW you learn.
The controversy which this article touches on
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/murphy/why-many-mcses-wont-learn-linux/1137
is apropos here.

I grew up with old UNIX and am in my 60s[1] and not the least bit
intimidated by having to learn, learn and learn anew every couple of
years. The alternative, as I see it, is atrophy and Altzheimers.

<quote>
Basically, to learn Unix you learn to understand and apply a small set
of key ideas and achieve expertise by expanding both the set of ideas
and your ability to apply them - but you learn Windows by working with
the functionality available in a specific release.

Put a Solaris guy who's never used Linux in front of SuSe 10 with a list
of complex tasks and he'll complain bitterly about missing pieces,
primitive storage management tools, idiosyncratic patching, misplaced or
missing command syntax, and a host of other annoyances - but he won't be
either intimidated or deterred; and the job will get done because he
knows how the tools he needs should work, and trusts that SuSe's
versions do in fact work.
</quote>

At various times I've considered V6, V7, BSD2.8, BSD4.1, BSD4.2 SUNOS,
Solaris, AIX, SCO UNIX, Mandrake, Fedora ... whatever, my baseline
reference from which all others deviate. These days its openSuse.
And yes, put me in front to a strange system, and its been oddities like
HP/UX and DG/UX along the way, and I cope. I may prefer Postfix but I
can cope with Sendmail.

Some recruiters once asked me how many languages I knew; the answer at
that time was well over a dozen, but the point was that I understood how
languages worked and had written a couple of interpreters and a
compiler. Once you understand how the patterns work, you apply the
patterns and principles. Or at least you do if you've been brought up
that way.

Recently I read a book on the controversy between Creationism and
Evolution. To understand Evolution you need to accept Deep Time, but
once you understand evolution you can see the application of change and
adaptation driven by environmental forces in many settings even over
much shorter periods of time. The pattern is there.

Science, mathematics, is based on the idea of a few basic principles,
patterns if you will, that are replicated and repeated and scale up to
build complex systems.

The alternative is a "sui generis", each instance on its own, view of
things. That means you have to learn each instance by itself. There
are no rules, no patterns. Each one is unique. Learning about one does
not tell you anything useful about any of the others.

Perhaps that is why, with each release of Windows, of MS-Office, there
are new training courses for users. It seems crazy to me; but then I
look for patterns and I have a reasonable idea of what's going on "under
the hood" so have an idea of what capabilities the GUI should offer.

My reality is that apart from the Value Added features each
vendor/supplier offers as differentiators, such as installation and
patch/revision management and packaging, Linux is a lot more
standardized than Windows.



[1] And no Lynn, I haven't retired; I'm in QA and Audit these days and
still have to write test code and spend my days pouring over logs and
error reports.
--
A: Yes.
> Q: Are you sure?
>> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >
This Thread
Follow Ups