1 |
Am 17.09.2014 um 22:58 schrieb Mark David Dumlao: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> |
4 |
> On Sep 18, 2014 2:37 AM, "Volker Armin Hemmann" |
5 |
> <volkerarmin@××××××××××.com <mailto:volkerarmin@××××××××××.com>> wrote: |
6 |
> > |
7 |
> > Am 17.09.2014 um 18:06 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés: |
8 |
> > > This is highly off-topic, and systemd-related, so if you don't want |
9 |
> > > your breakfast with a healthy amount of flames, skip it. |
10 |
> > > |
11 |
> > > iTWire posted an interview with Linus Torvalds[1], where the Big |
12 |
> > > Penguin himself gave a succinct and pretty fair opinion on systemd. |
13 |
> > > The gist of it can be resumed in two lines: |
14 |
> > > |
15 |
> > > "I don't personally mind systemd, and in fact my main desktop and |
16 |
> > > laptop both run it." |
17 |
> > > |
18 |
> > > I post it here because several times in the last discussions about |
19 |
> > > systemd, there was people asking what opinion Linus had about systemd. |
20 |
> > > I personally don't think Linus particular opinion matters at all in |
21 |
> > > this particular issue; in general people who likes systemd will |
22 |
> > > continue to like it, and people who despises it will continue to do |
23 |
> > > so, for any good, bad, real or imaginary reason. However, I *really* |
24 |
> > > like several things Linus says in the interview; some juicy bits: |
25 |
> > > |
26 |
> > > • "So I think many of the "original ideals" of UNIX are these days |
27 |
> > > more of a mindset issue than necessarily reflecting reality of the |
28 |
> > > situation." |
29 |
> > > |
30 |
> > > • "There's still value in understanding the traditional UNIX "do one |
31 |
> > > thing and do it well" model where many workflows can be done as a |
32 |
> > > pipeline of simple tools each adding their own value, but let's face |
33 |
> > > it, it's not how complex systems really work, and it's not how major |
34 |
> > > applications have been working or been designed for a long time. It's |
35 |
> > > a useful simplification, and it's still true at *some* level, but I |
36 |
> > > think it's also clear that it doesn't really describe most of |
37 |
> > > reality." |
38 |
> > > |
39 |
> > > • "...systemd is in no way the piece that breaks with old UNIX |
40 |
> legacy." |
41 |
> > > |
42 |
> > > • " I'm still old-fashioned enough that I like my log-files in text, |
43 |
> > > not binary, so I think sometimes systemd hasn't necessarily had the |
44 |
> > > best of taste, but hey, details..[.]" |
45 |
> > > |
46 |
> > > • (About the "single-point-of-failure" "argument") "I think people are |
47 |
> > > digging for excuses. I mean, if that is a reason to not use a piece of |
48 |
> > > software, then you shouldn't use the kernel either." |
49 |
> > > |
50 |
> > > • "And there's a classic term for it in the BSD camps: "bikeshed |
51 |
> > > painting", which is very much about how random people can feel like |
52 |
> > > they have the ability to discuss superficial issues, because everybody |
53 |
> > > feels that they can give an opinion on the color choice. So issues |
54 |
> > > that are superficial get a lot more noise. Then when it comes to |
55 |
> > > actual hard and deep technical decisions, people (sometimes) realise |
56 |
> > > that they just don't know enough, and they won't give that the same |
57 |
> > > kind of mouth-time." |
58 |
> > > |
59 |
> > > It's an interesting read; I highly recommend it. |
60 |
> > > |
61 |
> > > [1] |
62 |
> http://www.itwire.com/business-it-news/open-source/65402-torvalds-says-he-has-no-strong-opinions-on-systemd |
63 |
> > |
64 |
> > Now you use this to advertise for systemd? |
65 |
> > |
66 |
> > Systemd fanbois are becoming more and more desperate. |
67 |
> > |
68 |
> |
69 |
> Oh give it a rest volker. its been obvious for years on this list that |
70 |
> when it really came down to it, many systemd "critics" (and i airquote |
71 |
> that because the amount of critical thinking is imaginary) were almost |
72 |
> entirely devoid of technical arguments when or even background |
73 |
> knowledge, to the point of embarassing themselves on the amount of |
74 |
> "unix" knowledge they purport to know. |
75 |
> |
76 |
> theres been a terrible history of being blatantly ignorant about what |
77 |
> a software does and yet running the mouth about why its wrong, as if |
78 |
> you had a better idea on how to coordinate hundreds of disparate |
79 |
> develeoper projects on how to run their own ships. blatantly refusing |
80 |
> to give a crap what an "init thingy" is, or showing a hilarious |
81 |
> understanding of what fhs is supposed to do or solve, to downright |
82 |
> manufacturing what the /usr split was supposed to be about, or denying |
83 |
> that boot up race conditions were a thing... the list goes on and it |
84 |
> only betrays the haters' biases. |
85 |
> |
86 |
> fact of the matter is running to Linus' latest flame on udev or |
87 |
> systemd or fhs etc has been a standard go-to for haters t bring up for |
88 |
> years past... and now that Linus is like "well its okay blablabla" now |
89 |
> the systemd peeps are desperate? |
90 |
> |
91 |
> no, you are. go read yourself some fucking man pages, maybe youll |
92 |
> learn a little unix. |
93 |
> |
94 |
|
95 |
oh give it a rest Mark. Its been obvious for years on this list that |
96 |
systemd fanbois are constantly advocating their crap. From 'it boots so |
97 |
much faster' to 'Linus does not hate it'. |
98 |
|
99 |
Do we really have to endure it? |
100 |
|
101 |
With all the fuckups that had happened in the past and the systemd-devs |
102 |
were unable to admit? |
103 |
|
104 |
Seriously, keep the kindergarten away, ok? There are enough mailing |
105 |
lists where you can pat each others back and tell yourselves how great |
106 |
systemd is. You don't need to advertise it EVERYWHERE. |