1 |
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@×××××.com> |
2 |
wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Barry Schwartz |
5 |
> <chemoelectric@×××××××××××××.org> wrote: |
6 |
> > Lie Ryan <lie.1296@×××××.com> skribis: |
7 |
> >> Diversity isn't about feeding people who feels everything not-invented |
8 |
> >> here is godawful. When you have a clearly defined problem and you can |
9 |
> >> create a solution that satisfies that niche better than any other |
10 |
> >> solutions, that is diversity. |
11 |
> > |
12 |
> > 'Diversity' here is deviation from established Unix/POSIX philosophy |
13 |
> > in system design. Years of effort to simplify programming are being |
14 |
> > thrown away on grounds that resemble common arguments in favor of the |
15 |
> > 'tight integration' that is Microsoft Windows. I mean, seriously, many |
16 |
> > of the pro-systemd arguments are like those I have heard for using |
17 |
> > Windows: that applications 'just work', because they were written for |
18 |
> > a dominant system. |
19 |
> > |
20 |
> > But I view this like a programmer, not like a Windows user; I want my |
21 |
> > software to be portable because it is written portably (in a POSIX |
22 |
> > sense), not because it is written for a universally available |
23 |
> > particular POSIX variant. What I see is something like a return to the |
24 |
> > days when you had to write different code for variants of USG, BSD, |
25 |
> > and whatnot, except that now, unlike then, one of the variants is |
26 |
> > overwhelmingly dominant. |
27 |
> > |
28 |
> > What I really fear, though, is what if one day the kernel team is a |
29 |
> > different entity, more like other entities in the Linux world? |
30 |
> |
31 |
> As a professional programmer, I completely disagree with any dogma |
32 |
> based on "philosophy" rather than technical merits. I will not rehash |
33 |
> here the same discussion we have had several times in gentoo-user, so |
34 |
> I will just paste what Linus recently had to say about "the |
35 |
> traditional unix"[1]. |
36 |
> |
37 |
> "So I think many of the "original ideals" of UNIX are these days more |
38 |
> of a mindset issue than necessarily reflecting reality of the |
39 |
> situation. |
40 |
> |
41 |
> "There's still value in understanding the traditional UNIX "do one |
42 |
> thing and do it well" model where many workflows can be done as a |
43 |
> pipeline of simple tools each adding their own value, but let's face |
44 |
> it, it's not how complex systems really work, and it's not how major |
45 |
> applications have been working or been designed for a long time. It's |
46 |
> a useful simplification, and it's still true at *some* level, but I |
47 |
> think it's also clear that it doesn't really describe most of reality. |
48 |
> |
49 |
> "It might describe some particular case, though, and I do think it's a |
50 |
> useful teaching tool. People obviously still do those traditional |
51 |
> pipelines of processes and file descriptors that UNIX is perhaps |
52 |
> associated with, but there's a *lot* of cases where you have big |
53 |
> complex unified systems." |
54 |
> |
55 |
> Let me emphasize the important part: |
56 |
> |
57 |
> "There's still value in understanding the traditional UNIX [...] model |
58 |
> [...], but let's face it, it's not how complex systems really work". |
59 |
> |
60 |
> So, I'm sorry, but if I'm going to take a programmer's word, is going |
61 |
> to be Linus over almost anyone else. And to quote Rob Pike: "Not only |
62 |
> is UNIX dead, it's starting to smell really bad." |
63 |
> |
64 |
> Regards. |
65 |
> |
66 |
> [1] |
67 |
> http://www.itwire.com/business-it-news/open-source/65402-torvalds-says-he-has-no-strong-opinions-on-systemd |
68 |
> -- |
69 |
> Canek Peláez Valdés |
70 |
> Profesor de asignatura, Facultad de Ciencias |
71 |
> Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México |
72 |
> |
73 |
> |
74 |
You left out a few gems from Linus. I already posted Linus' rant about |
75 |
some of the major failings of systemd and its developers - there are some |
76 |
issues he brings up in his article that you still refuse to acknowledge as |
77 |
major short-comings: |
78 |
|
79 |
"I don't actually have any particularly strong opinions on systemd itself. |
80 |
I've had issues with some of the core developers that I think are much too |
81 |
cavalier about bugs and compatibility, and I think some of the design |
82 |
details are insane (I dislike the binary logs, for example), but those are |
83 |
details, not big issues." |
84 |
|
85 |
"Now, I'm still old-fashioned enough that I like my log-files in text, not |
86 |
binary, so I think sometimes systemd hasn't necessarily had the best of |
87 |
taste, but hey, details.." |
88 |
|
89 |
But of course, actions speak louder than words. Linus may have explained |
90 |
why he kicked Kay Sievers out of the kernel maintainers, but if he did, it |
91 |
wasn't included in the edited transcript. |