1 |
On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Harry Holt <harryholt@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> |
4 |
> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@×××××.com> |
5 |
> wrote: |
6 |
>> |
7 |
>> On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 12:58 PM, Barry Schwartz |
8 |
>> <chemoelectric@×××××××××××××.org> wrote: |
9 |
>> > Lie Ryan <lie.1296@×××××.com> skribis: |
10 |
>> >> Diversity isn't about feeding people who feels everything not-invented |
11 |
>> >> here is godawful. When you have a clearly defined problem and you can |
12 |
>> >> create a solution that satisfies that niche better than any other |
13 |
>> >> solutions, that is diversity. |
14 |
>> > |
15 |
>> > ‘Diversity’ here is deviation from established Unix/POSIX philosophy |
16 |
>> > in system design. Years of effort to simplify programming are being |
17 |
>> > thrown away on grounds that resemble common arguments in favor of the |
18 |
>> > ‘tight integration’ that is Microsoft Windows. I mean, seriously, many |
19 |
>> > of the pro-systemd arguments are like those I have heard for using |
20 |
>> > Windows: that applications ‘just work’, because they were written for |
21 |
>> > a dominant system. |
22 |
>> > |
23 |
>> > But I view this like a programmer, not like a Windows user; I want my |
24 |
>> > software to be portable because it is written portably (in a POSIX |
25 |
>> > sense), not because it is written for a universally available |
26 |
>> > particular POSIX variant. What I see is something like a return to the |
27 |
>> > days when you had to write different code for variants of USG, BSD, |
28 |
>> > and whatnot, except that now, unlike then, one of the variants is |
29 |
>> > overwhelmingly dominant. |
30 |
>> > |
31 |
>> > What I really fear, though, is what if one day the kernel team is a |
32 |
>> > different entity, more like other entities in the Linux world? |
33 |
>> |
34 |
>> As a professional programmer, I completely disagree with any dogma |
35 |
>> based on "philosophy" rather than technical merits. I will not rehash |
36 |
>> here the same discussion we have had several times in gentoo-user, so |
37 |
>> I will just paste what Linus recently had to say about "the |
38 |
>> traditional unix"[1]. |
39 |
>> |
40 |
>> "So I think many of the "original ideals" of UNIX are these days more |
41 |
>> of a mindset issue than necessarily reflecting reality of the |
42 |
>> situation. |
43 |
>> |
44 |
>> "There's still value in understanding the traditional UNIX "do one |
45 |
>> thing and do it well" model where many workflows can be done as a |
46 |
>> pipeline of simple tools each adding their own value, but let's face |
47 |
>> it, it's not how complex systems really work, and it's not how major |
48 |
>> applications have been working or been designed for a long time. It's |
49 |
>> a useful simplification, and it's still true at *some* level, but I |
50 |
>> think it's also clear that it doesn't really describe most of reality. |
51 |
>> |
52 |
>> "It might describe some particular case, though, and I do think it's a |
53 |
>> useful teaching tool. People obviously still do those traditional |
54 |
>> pipelines of processes and file descriptors that UNIX is perhaps |
55 |
>> associated with, but there's a *lot* of cases where you have big |
56 |
>> complex unified systems." |
57 |
>> |
58 |
>> Let me emphasize the important part: |
59 |
>> |
60 |
>> "There's still value in understanding the traditional UNIX [...] model |
61 |
>> [...], but let's face it, it's not how complex systems really work". |
62 |
>> |
63 |
>> So, I'm sorry, but if I'm going to take a programmer's word, is going |
64 |
>> to be Linus over almost anyone else. And to quote Rob Pike: "Not only |
65 |
>> is UNIX dead, it’s starting to smell really bad." |
66 |
>> |
67 |
>> Regards. |
68 |
>> |
69 |
>> [1] |
70 |
>> http://www.itwire.com/business-it-news/open-source/65402-torvalds-says-he-has-no-strong-opinions-on-systemd |
71 |
>> -- |
72 |
>> Canek Peláez Valdés |
73 |
>> Profesor de asignatura, Facultad de Ciencias |
74 |
>> Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México |
75 |
>> |
76 |
> |
77 |
> You left out a few gems from Linus. I already posted Linus' rant about some |
78 |
> of the major failings of systemd and its developers - there are some issues |
79 |
> he brings up in his article that you still refuse to acknowledge as major |
80 |
> short-comings: |
81 |
> |
82 |
> "I don't actually have any particularly strong opinions on systemd itself. |
83 |
> I've had issues with some of the core developers that I think are much too |
84 |
> cavalier about bugs and compatibility, and I think some of the design |
85 |
> details are insane (I dislike the binary logs, for example), but those are |
86 |
> details, not big issues." |
87 |
> |
88 |
> "Now, I'm still old-fashioned enough that I like my log-files in text, not |
89 |
> binary, so I think sometimes systemd hasn't necessarily had the best of |
90 |
> taste, but hey, details.." |
91 |
|
92 |
You make my point: all the things Linus doesn't like about systemd are |
93 |
"details". |
94 |
|
95 |
> But of course, actions speak louder than words. Linus may have explained |
96 |
> why he kicked Kay Sievers out of the kernel maintainers, but if he did, it |
97 |
> wasn't included in the edited transcript. |
98 |
|
99 |
That happened almost six months ago. Nobody in LKML really cares about |
100 |
that; only systemd-haters keep bring it up. |
101 |
|
102 |
And yeah, actions speak louder than words. See which distributions |
103 |
switched or are about to switch to systemd. |
104 |
|
105 |
In the end, those are the only actions that matter. |
106 |
|
107 |
Regards. |
108 |
-- |
109 |
Canek Peláez Valdés |
110 |
Profesor de asignatura, Facultad de Ciencias |
111 |
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México |