Re: [gentoo-amd64] Boycott Systemd

[Frank Peters <frank.peters@comcast.net>]

On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 14:24:39 -0500
Barry Schwartz <chemoelectric@chemoelectric.org> wrote:

> > 
> > Someone has to write an apocalyptic novel about Linus Torvalds being
> > assassinated and his role taken over by the evil figures from ???.
> 
> I’m simply concerned that one day he will retire. 
> 

We are now going into a completely different area.

But to proceed we have to understand the psychology which underlies
open source development.

In open source, ideally, there is no money involved.  (I ignore
those who are on some corporate payroll.)  What then is the motivation
to produce and develop open source software?

It is EGO which drives open source.  Let there be no denying.  Open
source developers obtain their primary satisfaction by showing off
their programming prowess.  They want to be well known and famous
for their programming achievements.

When Torvalds steps out of the picture, for whatever reason, the
void will be filled by ego maniacs who want to claim the title
of Prime Linux Guru.  Linus is Top Dog Numero Uno now, but we
can imagine that all his subordinates eagerly crave his status
and there will be great contention among them to be enthroned
in his place when he is gone.

I predict, if this were to happen, that Linux would transform into
the personal toy of its egotistical developers.

Of course, we would also have to anticipate the gabbing (or buying)
of Linux by big corporate interests.  In this case, the market forces
surrounding the "lowest common denominator" would be the guiding
principle of development.

In either case we would have degeneration. 

>
> We cannot rely on the programming community to do the right thing. We
> are, for instance, sticking canaries on the stack while continuing to
> write crucial software like OpenSSL entirely in languages that
> _guarantee_ buffer overruns; and the programmer will continue to be
> blamed, instead of the practices. (Those who care may want to check
> out www.ats-lang.org for a practical alternative to C, suitable even
> for writing kernel modules.)
> 

How difficult would it be to introduce bounds checking on all
C arrays as with some other languages?  Would bounds checking
reduce the efficiency and speed of C, as these are probably
its most desired characteristics?  C is essentially only one
small step away from machine language and that's why it's
preferred for systems programming.