On 7/14/2017 2:51 PM, Anton Aylward wrote:
On 14/07/17 01:29 PM, ianseeks wrote:
If referring to bugs fixed in systemd then i agree, jumping ship is not really clever.
Indeed. Expecting any software created by man, directly or indirectly, to be free of bugs and errors, is the height of stupidity.
Having a regular and consistent architecture/design, as opposed to an ad-hoc one, makes the errors easier to find (both by hackers and developers) and to address.
Those of us who are old enough will remember the maintenance problems 'spaghetti code' of the days before Edgar Dijkstra's "Go To Statement Considered Harmful" and the problems doing development before Codd's advocacy of SQL.
Disciplined structure gives poser though focus. An alternative would be converting cities and countryside to a paved expanse where you could drive in any direction and any speed with no protocols preventing you ... 'interacting' with other vehicles.
Hmm. Yes, it seems that there are cities like that in some places in the world. People do in fact choose to live there.
The box of tools and workbench provided by init and a scripting language of your choice is already the sane system of roads. Systemd is 5 trains that only go certain places at certain times in certain ways, AND, require the removal of all the other roads. If you discover, after the trains have been built, that you need to move something that doesn't fit in the train cars, too bad. You can't put some other kind of vehicle on the tracks. If you discover, after the trains have been built, that you need to stop mid way for a detour along the way, too bad. etc etc. systemd is actually simply thoughtless and inconsiderate. You don't need anything like systemd to provide a system of standards or "disciplined structure". It's ironic. systemd itself benefits, and is only even possible, thanks to other parts of the system being exactly as agnostic as systemd itself fails to be, adhering to principles systemd itself fails to. The kernel lets you specify whatever you want to run as "init". Why doesn't the kernel insist on some "discipline and structure" and decree exactly what the binary is that will run as init? Or better yet, just have the init functionality built in to the kernel itself? Because it would be wildly shortsighted and inflexible and plain dickish to do that. systemd is essentially android or a game console. It provides a particular special environment, which might be a pretty cool environment with many desirable features, but it is the opposite of flexible and it is not unix. I'm quite "old enough to remember" all the reasons the agnostic box of tools IS the sane and useful and considerate framework, and this all-singing-all-dancing thing is just a fat, limiting, monstrosity with vendor lock-in as an added bonus icing feature. -- bkw -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org