Damian Ivanov wrote:
I don't know what Anton said, I did.
If we won't be able to remove systemd without major troubles - great, finally a good API around for long time. No matter how much you whine about systemd it's there. And it will be. Good :-)
Since when are large monolithic programs either good or maintainable? It's NOT modular design -- that is generally considered *BAD**... It can't be broken apart (says its creator) -- again, these are all things that speak of bad design. Nearly every measure of software quality would label this a bad project -- from design, from non-general API's, monolithic design (all running as 'root', gee, and no one sees a problem with that?). Unix/Linux has had power and growth because parts are replaceable. Systemd is designing "out" all replaceable parts. It's designing out the strengths of linux. Linus refused to go with 1 security model and instead demanded the LSM base to allow multiple models to live together. Now someone comes along and does just the opposite and this is considered good? What crazed out world is this? This is a maintenance and security nightmare. This is NOT open software -- this is antithetical to almost every principle of open software. It's also (not that anyone seems to care) NOT going to be POSIX compatible, as POSIX compatible specifies unix-like systems -- not ones that have removed most of the unix features. He claims that his logind, udevd, dbusd all are dead and combined into systemd. I want to use cgroups to implement my own process and daemon control, yet systemd is supposedly going to disallow such changes. It's taking over linux in a very bad way. Um... no one is thinking megalomaniac? This is NOT good for open software and is exemplary of bad software design -- with most of the linux community being sucked up to deal with adapting to this crazy scheme. Software monocultures are unhealthy. When will people learn?? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org