| 1 |
On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 02:11:42 +1000 |
| 2 |
Lie Ryan <lie.1296@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Let's make ten different electric sockets, twenty different way to |
| 6 |
> calculate version number for softwares, thirty software licenses, and |
| 7 |
> don't forget to make at least five mutually-incompatible APIs for |
| 8 |
> every browser features that all do roughly the same thing differently. |
| 9 |
> Oh, and everyone had to write their dates in Month-Year-Day, period. |
| 10 |
> Is your life any better from having this kind of "diversity"? |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
The kind of diversity in Linux that should always be maintained is |
| 14 |
the diversity that results from having a highly configurable and |
| 15 |
customizable system. Each user, or each distribution, is therefore |
| 16 |
able to pick and choose what is best or preferable. The Linux kernel |
| 17 |
allows many different options/modules to be either enabled or disabled |
| 18 |
and this is a good thing. Some people require rigid security while |
| 19 |
others do not. Each is free to tune the security to a desired level. |
| 20 |
It would not be right to impose a single configuration on all users. |
| 21 |
Such freedom comes at the cost, I suppose, of higher system complexity |
| 22 |
but anything other than complete flexibility and choice in design would |
| 23 |
make Linux severely unattractive. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Whenever something like systemd comes along, its utility should be measured |
| 26 |
against this need for freedom of configuration. IMO, it's better to |
| 27 |
be crude and flexible than elegant and rigid. |
Archives