| 1 |
Lie Ryan <lie.1296@×××××.com> skribis: |
| 2 |
> Diversity isn't about feeding people who feels everything not-invented |
| 3 |
> here is godawful. When you have a clearly defined problem and you can |
| 4 |
> create a solution that satisfies that niche better than any other |
| 5 |
> solutions, that is diversity. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
‘Diversity’ here is deviation from established Unix/POSIX philosophy |
| 8 |
in system design. Years of effort to simplify programming are being |
| 9 |
thrown away on grounds that resemble common arguments in favor of the |
| 10 |
‘tight integration’ that is Microsoft Windows. I mean, seriously, many |
| 11 |
of the pro-systemd arguments are like those I have heard for using |
| 12 |
Windows: that applications ‘just work’, because they were written for |
| 13 |
a dominant system. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
But I view this like a programmer, not like a Windows user; I want my |
| 16 |
software to be portable because it is written portably (in a POSIX |
| 17 |
sense), not because it is written for a universally available |
| 18 |
particular POSIX variant. What I see is something like a return to the |
| 19 |
days when you had to write different code for variants of USG, BSD, |
| 20 |
and whatnot, except that now, unlike then, one of the variants is |
| 21 |
overwhelmingly dominant. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
What I really fear, though, is what if one day the kernel team is a |
| 24 |
different entity, more like other entities in the Linux world? |
Archives