1 |
On 09/21/2014 07:23 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: |
2 |
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 7:45 AM, hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
3 |
>> Canek Peláez Valdés: |
4 |
>>> On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 8:46 AM, hasufell <hasufell@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
>>>>> • "There's still value in understanding the traditional UNIX "do one |
6 |
>>>>> thing and do it well" model where many workflows can be done as a |
7 |
>>>>> pipeline of simple tools each adding their own value, but let's face |
8 |
>>>>> it, it's not how complex systems really work, and it's not how major |
9 |
>>>>> applications have been working or been designed for a long time. It's |
10 |
>>>>> a useful simplification, and it's still true at *some* level, but I |
11 |
>>>>> think it's also clear that it doesn't really describe most of |
12 |
>>>>> reality." |
13 |
>>>>> |
14 |
>>>> |
15 |
>>>> He doesn't make an actual argument why useful abstraction cannot be done |
16 |
>>>> in complex systems. |
17 |
>>> |
18 |
>>> He doesn't need to; |
19 |
>> |
20 |
>> Sure he does. |
21 |
> |
22 |
> No, he does not, because the link I posted was not an argument, was an |
23 |
> interview and he was asked for his opinion, and in no moment was he |
24 |
> asked to justify his opinion. |
25 |
> |
26 |
> You, on the other hand, seem to be arguing. I don't know exactly with |
27 |
> whom, because surely is not with me. |
28 |
> |
29 |
|
30 |
Then please just refrain from answering if you don't understand how my |
31 |
point matters in terms of systemd development, thanks. |