From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FA87138E66 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 20:54:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 55629E0AB8; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 20:54:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-wg0-f41.google.com (mail-wg0-f41.google.com [74.125.82.41]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 11223E0A69 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 20:54:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wg0-f41.google.com with SMTP id l18so3203727wgh.4 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 12:54:49 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:reply-to:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:message-id; bh=6emMvDxMQDl7NFtB2K+SZteoqsB0gCwdHXzfJytsu3g=; b=TO78xg4Qz2c1Hyfcfr8UUQiLsD2FjEwpi52BNjT4SopTEZx98wejiEhJoKEJckGITB 60lveK3+OjV4a2ZN87k2dl4rGIP4zlWYkOLt0rkdUvT6gY4aoRexcm66v6k6NaDhkm8y jj//x5YnbWSduiJj7mGGOCH59aeze6G5UTjRTtX7hLq76O4uFRv2RHsTriXcdzhJR7Tu 0/69c4YrfumNHgwAj6M4ENbbL9ravkkg0XqrjytfP0pvUOtfdh76F2EwZ5KflVP8k1nS A8rEIPjrv+BlOYyJs7+7dxSE81+49FItnTnlIJCsFamGQL8va3a7BEV79y/CddYPqW4F UKoQ== X-Received: by 10.180.13.33 with SMTP id e1mr16345567wic.38.1393275289148; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 12:54:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from dell_xps.localnet (230.3.169.217.in-addr.arpa. [217.169.3.230]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id br10sm44995684wjb.3.2014.02.24.12.54.46 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 24 Feb 2014 12:54:47 -0800 (PST) From: Mick To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 20:54:15 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.10.17-gentoo; KDE/4.11.5; x86_64; ; ) References: <52FF84CE.2050301@libertytrek.org> <201402232312.18683.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart3051364.bMj4bC3CvP"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201402242054.31561.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> X-Archives-Salt: fd036d11-e44a-4754-8404-fb0788e4b32f X-Archives-Hash: 5ece7a1686b767dafd18e4a44919f315 --nextPart3051364.bMj4bC3CvP Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sunday 23 Feb 2014 23:54:32 Canek Pel=C3=A1ez Vald=C3=A9s wrote: > On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 5:12 PM, Mick wrote: >=20 > [ snip ] >=20 > > Well, I'm no authority on this since I can't code, >=20 > My point exactly. I think your point is not valid, unless you view Linux as an operating syst= em=20 intended for and inviting comments only from an inspired l33t who can code = and=20 it is *only* their user requirements that count. I understand though that it is their/their employer's choice as to how they= =20 spend their coding time and what they spend it on. I am not ungrateful for= =20 their generosity whether I agree with their approach or not. > And that's the point; the people doing this changes *obviously > understand Unix*. They understand it so well that they are able to > look at it honestly, beyond dogma or articles of faith, and see its > downsides, so they can try to fix them. You seem to have a lot of faith in their approach and choice-limiting=20 decisions. They have made arbitrary decisions in developing their software= in=20 ways contrary to their predecessors. I don't know if this is because they = are=20 cleverer than their predecessors, or more ignorant/arrogant/wrong. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy >=20 > This reminds me of the people that quote from religious books to argue > about anything non theological. The "rules" and "sound bites" in the > links you provide are there to summarize rules of thumb; they are NOT > scripture, and they are certainly NOT the only way to get a > technically good program that is easily maintainable. In other words, > you can ignore most of them, or just following them to a point, and > anyway end up with a sound design and a technically great program that > is easy to maintain and extend. I agree. This is not a religion, but a statement of design principles base= d=20 on some observations of what seemed to work (at the time) that were made af= ter=20 the event. > The people with coding experience (or most of them anyway) understand > this; we are not a religion, we don't have prophets that speak the > undeniably truth. We have highly skilled developers who can have > opposing views on how to design and implement many different ideas, > and that doesn't (necessarily) means that any of them are wrong. We agree again, except that some of these opposing ideas are limiting futur= e=20 development choices and current user options. > There are many ways to solve a problem of sets of problems. Having > Emacs doesn't mean vi is "wrong", nor having GNOME means KDE is > "wrong", nor the other way around. KDE took a wrong turn the moment it started emulating Gnome by hardcoding=20 redland a whole host of components in its pursuit of a semantic desktop,=20 removing choice from users who would be otherwise very happy with the KDE3= =20 functionality. Many users have voted with their feet - not because they ca= n=20 code better or code at all, but because they still have a choice as plain=20 users. At least KDE has not hardcoded a requirement for systemd as Gnome now has. > >> I've now concluded it's a myth, much like invisible pink unicorns. > >>=20 > >> Is it like the kernel? A huge monolithic chunk of code with support for > >> modules? > >=20 > > I would think that although the kernel has grown over the years, it has > > not done so like systemd. You can still *not* build modules you don't > > need in your kernel. >=20 > This has nothing to do with "Unix principles"; it's just that someone > willing and able implemented the different options. Well, "someone willing and able implemented the different options", but did= so=20 by following the paradigm of modular development. > > The Unix design philosophy may not be globally applicable, but has serv= ed > > Linux well over the years. >=20 > No; what has served Linux is to have developers willing and able to > write the necessary code, following whatever design they decide is the > correct one. I think we have a fundamental disagreement here. The Unix design principle= s=20 inc. modularisation and extensibility make good sense when seen from the=20 perspective of many contributors adding to and improving code in a piece me= al=20 fashion. X11 did not follow this approach and ended up with convoluted=20 unmaintainable code that had to be broken up. Having developers able and willing to write code is of course a preconditio= n,=20 but not just any code. It has to be code which others can pick up, improve= =20 and extend. In other words, they have to write code which is versatile, be= ing=20 respectful of and keeping in mind future development effort. > > Lennart has de facto introduced a different way of > > developing his Linux code, which to others and me seems more restrictiv= e. >=20 > First of all, it's not only Lennart; the systemd repo has (literally) > dozens of contributors with write access. >=20 > Second of all, calling "restrictive" the tightly integrated approach, > is exactly as constructive as calling "anarchic" the loosely > integrated one. Like "Unix principles", it means nothing and it says > nothing. On the contrary, I think it says something quite specific: Lennart and oth= er=20 contributors have decided to not follow a modular approach and have hard=20 wired components into a growing monolith. In doing so they have remove cho= ice=20 from users. You want Gnome? You *must* user systemd. At least for this=20 reason alone his and other contributors design approach is deficient and=20 criticised by many as inappropriate for Linux. I expect that ultimately, this hard wiring will meet its timely end because= it=20 is by its nature self-limiting and a new development effort will start agai= n. =2D-=20 Regards, Mick --nextPart3051364.bMj4bC3CvP Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAABAgAGBQJTC7GHAAoJELAdA+zwE4YewZEH/R/Z7eqToLIIHMb07LkT9MjA Ic68Z6c/7vxMAlSjHV08KQsDyYOcu0Bh4YkJ9gpEyWTsvW5+J/M937B+HQVBt00U m0UDbqrIKH9eeAew906Zo42owPfLwRysmU2sQ5gEYRGglUbbvNLlMqFE+jrXaPtq z9PEmeuNVkmHlA+KJCMJEWJ3KnZBuNckMeNC+vvctW3gZB52WWbdBsGkErcIFbnD DWkt4JfvuAXysgq5kZYRzxhnij1I1wblABffT6Moxy45yQ6U2TbxGQOgFVWACGlC MsHz0JHPpVnx7dVFk2ZDHx/Lf4mRZn3TBvmdJKwIwioTMMOqaiOQaq5cZsgPVnI= =KkaM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart3051364.bMj4bC3CvP--