5 Mar
2017
5 Mar
'17
13:53
On Sunday, 5 March 2017 14:18:36 CET L A Walsh wrote: > Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > On Friday 2017-03-03 06:34, Kyek, Andreas, Vodafone DE (External) wrote: > >> The "way" of systemd (doing a lot of tasks which were assigned to several > >> dedicated tools before) is in my opinion not the "unix way". > >> > >> but please don't forget the "linux way" of having > >> small simple specialist - like "cron". > > > > http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html #6 > > ---- > It's not modular at the program or package levels as the system > before it was. The only modular features it has are at build time. > > From the perspective of non-developers, that is not modular as it isn't > reconfigurable by non-developers nor on on systems without the > necessary build tools. Developers are in the minority among all users. > > Claiming something is "modular" because you can reconfigure it at build > time, > is evidence of being out-of-touch with most users by a huge margin. > > At what point does being out-of-touch with the rest of society > imply some type of sociopathology? im finding your im just a "user" thing hard to buy 1) why would a "user" want to change anything significanlty at the level of architecture 2) whats easier impliment systemd unit or your own init scripts (and to do so reliably) 3) which gives the most transparent and clean monitoring tools 4) as a "user" is it not easier to move between distributions with systemd? 5) if the definition of modular is a jumble of scripts you are correct 6) another name for someone out of touch with the confusion of the masses is a visionary -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org