1 |
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Barry Schwartz |
2 |
<chemoelectric@×××××××××××××.org> wrote: |
3 |
> Lie Ryan <lie.1296@×××××.com> skribis: |
4 |
>> Diversity isn't about feeding people who feels everything not-invented |
5 |
>> here is godawful. When you have a clearly defined problem and you can |
6 |
>> create a solution that satisfies that niche better than any other |
7 |
>> solutions, that is diversity. |
8 |
> |
9 |
> ‘Diversity’ here is deviation from established Unix/POSIX philosophy |
10 |
> in system design. Years of effort to simplify programming are being |
11 |
> thrown away on grounds that resemble common arguments in favor of the |
12 |
> ‘tight integration’ that is Microsoft Windows. I mean, seriously, many |
13 |
> of the pro-systemd arguments are like those I have heard for using |
14 |
> Windows: that applications ‘just work’, because they were written for |
15 |
> a dominant system. |
16 |
> |
17 |
> But I view this like a programmer, not like a Windows user; I want my |
18 |
> software to be portable because it is written portably (in a POSIX |
19 |
> sense), not because it is written for a universally available |
20 |
> particular POSIX variant. What I see is something like a return to the |
21 |
> days when you had to write different code for variants of USG, BSD, |
22 |
> and whatnot, except that now, unlike then, one of the variants is |
23 |
> overwhelmingly dominant. |
24 |
> |
25 |
> What I really fear, though, is what if one day the kernel team is a |
26 |
> different entity, more like other entities in the Linux world? |
27 |
|
28 |
As a professional programmer, I completely disagree with any dogma |
29 |
based on "philosophy" rather than technical merits. I will not rehash |
30 |
here the same discussion we have had several times in gentoo-user, so |
31 |
I will just paste what Linus recently had to say about "the |
32 |
traditional unix"[1]. |
33 |
|
34 |
"So I think many of the "original ideals" of UNIX are these days more |
35 |
of a mindset issue than necessarily reflecting reality of the |
36 |
situation. |
37 |
|
38 |
"There's still value in understanding the traditional UNIX "do one |
39 |
thing and do it well" model where many workflows can be done as a |
40 |
pipeline of simple tools each adding their own value, but let's face |
41 |
it, it's not how complex systems really work, and it's not how major |
42 |
applications have been working or been designed for a long time. It's |
43 |
a useful simplification, and it's still true at *some* level, but I |
44 |
think it's also clear that it doesn't really describe most of reality. |
45 |
|
46 |
"It might describe some particular case, though, and I do think it's a |
47 |
useful teaching tool. People obviously still do those traditional |
48 |
pipelines of processes and file descriptors that UNIX is perhaps |
49 |
associated with, but there's a *lot* of cases where you have big |
50 |
complex unified systems." |
51 |
|
52 |
Let me emphasize the important part: |
53 |
|
54 |
"There's still value in understanding the traditional UNIX [...] model |
55 |
[...], but let's face it, it's not how complex systems really work". |
56 |
|
57 |
So, I'm sorry, but if I'm going to take a programmer's word, is going |
58 |
to be Linus over almost anyone else. And to quote Rob Pike: "Not only |
59 |
is UNIX dead, it’s starting to smell really bad." |
60 |
|
61 |
Regards. |
62 |
|
63 |
[1] http://www.itwire.com/business-it-news/open-source/65402-torvalds-says-he-has-no-strong-opinions-on-systemd |
64 |
-- |
65 |
Canek Peláez Valdés |
66 |
Profesor de asignatura, Facultad de Ciencias |
67 |
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México |