On 06/29/14 13:43, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
Why are people poluting our lists with systemd rants??? There is nothing to 
discuss since we do not want and will never have systemd. If you don't 
understand what the systemd-utl GSoC is about then move along.

  Gustav Fransson Nyvell <gus...@nyvell.se> wrote:

On 06/29/14 13:09, bodie wrote:
On 29.06.2014 12:40, Eric Furman wrote:
My real helpful comments are that it violates every real concept of UNIX
Do ONE thing and do it WELL
It's because RedHat (and Oracle) doesn't care about Unix principles
(or initial ideas of Linux). They are stating it quite clearly and yet
people and communities can't see that. Especially RedHat does not care
about Linux or Unix as such. It's company, they want to make profit
and create form of vendor lock in. That's how sharks operate in that
territory. Thinking that they will listen to any one be it some
community leader or some big distribution is at least naive. Look at
ArchLinux, Ubuntu, Fedora, OpenSuSe, Debian, Gentoo and others. It's
either shut up and play with us or leave "Linux" game nowadays. And
because most of the development is done anyway in RedHat and/or Oracle
they either need to follow or dissapear. So here's that true freedom
hidden in GPL. Following orders of one/two big corporations and that's
it. BSD world had crash with corporate world in 90's in USL vs BSDi
and BSD won, but seems like corporations found another way how to
cripple Unix roots to its knees.

Think about why Linus is so much in rage mood this year against
various devs from RedHat and yet can do shit about them because he's
no longer in control and he knows it. No wonder he choose to focus
more on on-line Linux courses under Linuxfoundation (he will not have
so much time for kernel during those for sure).


Systemd does none of these things.

On Sun, Jun 29, 2014, at 04:51 AM, Antoine Jacoutot wrote:
https://uglyman.kremlin.cc/gitweb/gitweb.cgi?p=systemd-utl.git;a=blob;f=scripts/gen-gdbus-interfaces.sh;h=f827434d0211ea8765c075fdb2916386ffc16ecb;hb=HEAD
btw. it's bashism in a posix shell suit?
If that is all you were able to spot then move along :-)
It's very pre-alpha WIP and many things will be modified. If you have
real helpful comments to make, feel free to contact Ian, landry@ and
myself.

--
Antoine
UNIX is very old. Some hang on to one or two principles like they're the
word of god. For example, in this discussion, that one tool should do
one thing and do it well. It kind of makes you blind. Look at the bigger
picture. Isn't systemd doing one thing and doing it well? Sure, it's
opaque, I guess. Do you miss configuring by file? I do, I think it's
reliable. Maybe systemd needs a bit of KISS criticism, because it sure
isn't looking simple. At the end of the day, all we need is a running
system, we don't need... dbus. However, like I started this, the word of
god gets in the way, there are a lot of convenient things going on in
Linux (or Ubuntu, I used Ubuntu.) This is where you hate me but I like
the kernel or system to use the entire computer for the task I am doing,
but I am mainly a "desktop" user or non-server user, at least on the
home laptop. When I compile, I want ALL resources working towards it. If
I watch a movie, ALL resources towards it. The machine's focus should be
on what I want to do. And... well, this is where UNIX gets in the way. I
think we could develop UNIX, just look at Plan 9. There are some great
ideas in there. Which have been implemented too. Everything as a file,
is a very good idea. It's very simple. UNIX does not have this idea in
it. But I think like Theo de Raadt wrote, "I don't know what they are
chasing" about the corporations, Red Hat et al. It's not the finer
points of computer discoveries they're after. Plan 9 isn't a huge
commercial success, but it's fine. Well, just my two cents!

--
This e-mail is confidential and may not be shared with anyone other than 
recipient(s) without written permission from sender. Public domain through misc@

I'm not saying GET systemd. I thought this was a broad discussion. And I'm NOT ranting.

--
This e-mail is confidential and may not be shared with anyone other than 
recipient(s) without written permission from sender. Public domain thru misc@

Reply via email to