On 20/05/14 02:49, Dirk Gently wrote:
Fred A. Miller wrote:
The Neverending Systemd Saga <http://www.linuxinsider.com/edpick/80472.html> Here in the Linux blogosphere, controversies come and go like the wind, leaving a trail of broken chalk and empty whiskey bottles in their wake. Most pass quietly into the annals of time of their own accord, however, so when a luminary such as Eric Steven Raymond weighs in with an opinion, it's a safe bet there's something big going on. That's what happened in March on the topic of Systemd. [More...] <http://www.linuxinsider.com/edpick/80472.html>
ESR says the same thing I wrote on the main list... SystemD violates the basic Unix/Linux principle of doing ONE THING and DOING IT WELL. SystemD does a multitude of things, and does the most important ones very poorly.
I notice also that the mentioned link, http://ewontfix.com/14/ states that SystemD envelops another "essential" component, udev.
This isn't surprising, when we consider that BOTH of these software abortions (udev and systemd) both come from Kay Sievers.
Nothin personal about Kay, but, never allow ANYTHING which must be simple and ultra-low maintenance to be designed by a German, it's like looking for something to be miniaturized, and instead of going to the Russians instead of the Japanese (who think CONSTANTLY about how to save space on their little, overcrowded, mountainous islands), or looking for ideas and innovations for automation and labor-saving devices in India (a land which STILL hasn't adopted automatic sand depositors on their railroad engines -- a device which is LITERALLY no more complicated than a pendulum which blocks the bottom of a funnel full of sand when the engine is running level, because it is even CHEAPER to get two "untouchables" to sit on the front of each engine, one over each rail, with a bag of sand, and telling them to sprinkle sand whenever the engine is on a grade).
No... Simplicity, especially elegant, fool-proof simplicity and Germans are never a combination you will ever come across outside of extremely poorly-written fiction. It just isn't in their national character.
Best example -- German tanks and artillery produced in the period of 1943-45. All WAY over-engineered. Masterworks of engineering prowess, all of which were WAY WAY WAY overly-complicated and way too demanding of maintenance- and operator-level time, attention and labor to actually accomplish the tasks which they were supposed to accomplish (i.e. a single artillery piece which required not only an entire BATTALION and the full-time attention of a colonel to operate, but also required a RAILROAD ENGINEERINg BATTALION to even put the damned thing into position... all to deliver less than 20 artillery shells/day to the target -- where as run-of-the-mill truck-towed 75mm~150mm howitzer and guns could deliver hundreds of rounds/day PER artillery piece, and a battalion of men could man DOZENS of these pieces, AND even one of these smaller howitzers could destroy dozens of enemy positions before the 450mm, twin railroad-track railroad gun could even acquire one target with spotting rounds).
Germans should stick with what they are good at -- designing and building complicated things that SHOULD be complicated, or which are inherently complicated. A replacement for init is definitely NOT one of these things.
Hey, this is opensuse.offtopic? I gotta join. Brilliant! -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org