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 C4991138E66 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 02:30:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EE07CE0B87; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 02:30:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ie0-f193.google.com (mail-ie0-f193.google.com [209.85.223.193]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D225AE0B14 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 02:30:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ie0-f193.google.com with SMTP id rl12so1700058iec.0 for ; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 18:30:18 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=31XANqxTiD6JVCPhZeXtW0Szsh9rwCJ5VVUoCxrUZpE=; b=hM4iPIlk6e2d9xH2eGprInzRM6o+C6iDOvhbjFFv3llafsJIfnXQdHOveZoe6MbFoD YJ2iVD2PVrllsPfeN1qujC6zpesffDAaR493KbhVEbIkZY329bOckof/crQVlk2e6sll DTvWdNmQ3PPBYh2v9ZmKenmGvDTT2+ZU1jSlNmMcn10Cu0d7B1xLU9/to589JVXWjIBl XXpW7MYJ6C2GJvL62sgdIqJ1AE5O4oJ6GGiYR902SQG1fPTjREf6CoEHHkyDbjIL7VdD IFH1SuxCw7nbRv6sDv/UZojQ9lhdZ+N5bAwNCxj/Fq60bMR+7b/YyQvaCN3jRSD/VYD9 aAog== 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 X-Received: by 10.42.254.3 with SMTP id nc3mr12227838icb.67.1393209018228; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 18:30:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.50.122.37 with HTTP; Sun, 23 Feb 2014 18:30:17 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <530A9B3D.80002@gmail.com> References: <52FF84CE.2050301@libertytrek.org> <530A7700.4030809@gmail.com> <201402232312.18683.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> <530A9B3D.80002@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 10:30:17 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Debian just voted in systemd for default init system in jessie From: Mark David Dumlao To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 0cb6e41c-837e-4721-b0ac-799295e31d9a X-Archives-Hash: 2dd5886e48569e302fb1f6b90ce8abe7 On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Alan McKinnon wr= ote: > On 24/02/2014 01:12, Mick wrote: >> On Sunday 23 Feb 2014 22:32:32 Alan McKinnon wrote: >>> On 23/02/2014 20:18, Canek Pel=E1ez Vald=E9s wrote: >>>> I don't think forking would attract much developers. Writing something >>>> new trying to follow "the*nix design principles", but being modern and >>>> with the same features (all of them optional, of course) of systemd >>>> will have more chances; although I think it will fail because most of >>>> the people that can code "better" actually like the systemd design, >>>> and would prefer to contribute to it. >>>> >>>> And if you found enough of this mythical good-coders, good luck >>>> defining what it means "the*nix design principles". >>> >>> I've been wondering about this concept of "the*nix design principles"..= . >> >> Well, I'm no authority on this since I can't code, but here's a starter = for >> 10: >> >> http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ch01s06.html >> >> http://people.fas.harvard.edu/~lib113/reference/unix/co-unix4.html > > I really like documents like this, all airy-fairy and giving the > impression that the whole design was worked out nicely in advance. It > wasn't. the doc even quotes this fellow who had nothing to do with the > doc itself: > > "Those who don't understand UNIX are doomed to reinvent it, poorly." > --Henry Spencer > > Let me tell you how Unix was designed, how the whole thing took shape > once K&R had gotten C pretty much stabilized. It is most apparent in IO > error handling in early designs and it goes like this: > > We don't do error handling. We don't even try and deal with it at the > point it occurred, we just chuck it back up the stack, essentially > giving them message "stuff it, I'm not dealing with this. You called me, > you fix it." > > Doesn't sound like good design does it? Sounds more like do whatever you > think you can get away with. Good design in this area gives you > something conceptually along the lines of try...catch...finally (with > possibly some work done to avoid throwing another exception in the > finally). Unix error "design" does this: > > exit > and an error message is in $@ if you feel like looking for it > > Strangely, this approach is exactly why Unix took off and got such > widespread adoption throughout the 70s. An engineer will understand that > a well-thought out design that is theoretically correct requires an > underlying design that is consistent. In the 70s, hardware consistency > was a joke - every installation was different. Consistent error handling > would severely limit the arches this new OS could run on. By taking a > "Stuff it, you deal with it coz I'm not!" approach, the handling was > fobbed off to a higher layer that was a) not really able to deal with it > and b) at least in a position to try *something*. > > By ripping out the theoretical correctness aspects, devs were left with > something that actually could compile and run. You had to bolt on your > own fancy bits to make it reliable but eventually over time these things > too stabilized into a consistent pattern (mostly by hardware vendors > going bankrupt and their stuff leaving the playing field) > > And so we come to what "Unix design" probably really is: > > "You do what you have to to get the job done, the simpler the better, > but I'm not *really* gonna hold you to that." > *slow clap* --=20 This email is: [ ] actionable [ ] fyi [x] social Response needed: [ ] yes [ ] up to you [x] no Time-sensitive: [ ] immediate [ ] soon [x] none