On Sat, 09 Aug 2014 13:25:09 -0700 Linda Walsh wrote:
Damian Ivanov wrote:
Have a look at: http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html\
I'll just address the 1st.
Systemd isn't open to any current standards. It is monolithic - because the 69 parts can't work with anything else. They work as 1 piece. They can't be dropped into other environments and be useful and other pieces of software can't be plugged in to replace any of those 69 parts. Monolithic means it isn't open to any standards outside itself. It's a self-enclosed ecosystem -- and that is what makes it monolithic. The designer has consistently refused to allow for alternatives. That inherently makes it monolithic.
That it's writer cannot understand basic ideas of interoperability and thinks that his way is good for everyone reminds me of any dictator that has preceded a totalitarian regime. I don't really expect much better in this case. I'd love to be surprised, but the antipathy for anyone who doesn't step into line and follow -- is reminiscent of various lovely times in history -- the inquisition, the crusades, the rise of stalin, mussolini and their period peer, to name a few. The mindset is simply antithetical to a healthy ecosystem.
I've just found that the systemd package includes 369 files (381 already, while writing this message). I'm shocked. openSUSE applied 300+ patches??? Is systemd good and stable for openSUSE? It seems, NO. I see, every systemd commit to Factory is ~ +10 patches. What's the hell systemd is good for openSUSE? Looking at Fedora? No Fedora way, please. We are openSUSE. -- WBR Kyrill