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 BDA3D13838B for ; Sun, 21 Sep 2014 12:45:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4BDF7E09BB; Sun, 21 Sep 2014 12:45:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4A629E09AA for ; Sun, 21 Sep 2014 12:45:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (assk2.torservers.net [78.108.63.44]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: hasufell) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 0BECF33FF5E for ; Sun, 21 Sep 2014 12:45:14 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <541EC855.9010602@gentoo.org> Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 12:45:09 +0000 From: hasufell 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 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] [OT] Linus Torvalds on systemd References: <541D8521.2060205@gentoo.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Archives-Salt: fd096fe6-6162-485c-a19c-165a1d52cc35 X-Archives-Hash: c67fc0e917dc5d2269637addd21881ab Canek Peláez Valdés: > On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 8:46 AM, hasufell wrote: >>> • "There's still value in understanding the traditional UNIX "do one >>> thing and do it well" model where many workflows can be done as a >>> pipeline of simple tools each adding their own value, but let's face >>> it, it's not how complex systems really work, and it's not how major >>> applications have been working or been designed for a long time. It's >>> a useful simplification, and it's still true at *some* level, but I >>> think it's also clear that it doesn't really describe most of >>> reality." >>> >> >> He doesn't make an actual argument why useful abstraction cannot be done >> in complex systems. > > He doesn't need to; Sure he does. He made a statement that needs technical arguments (not stuff like "people do it these days") and didn't even answer the reporters question. I think this is not a problem about complex systems, but rather about development models. But no wonder a C programmer in one of the highest commit rate projects in the world thinks like that. And it's probably even true in that CASE.