On 17 June 2016 at 00:10, Mouse <mo...@rodents-montreal.org> wrote: >>> No, it's not an old-fashioned simplistic Unix utility. Hey, >>> newsflash, neither is GNOME, neither is KDE. > > And if either of those were being made as central to the system as > systemd is, there would be a similar outcry against them. > > The problem is not that systemd is bloated, or buggy, or badly > designed. The problem is that it's bloated, buggy, badly designed - > _and_ is being made very, very central to even rudimentary operation of > the OS. > > Well, that, and that a whole lot of users perceive it as being rammed > down their metaphorical throats, something that raises hackles at the > best of times.
That's a fair point, and I totally accept it. OTOH, arguably, so is Linux itself. In contrast: Many favour the BSDs because they apparently "feel cohesive", "like one piece of software written by one team", as opposed to... Huh. Googled for the quote, found, er, myself. Weird. « Friends of mine who are the sort of Unix beardie who lives at the command line and sneers at graphical desktops tell me that BSD feels more like an integrated whole than Linux: apparently, they say, you can tell that everything came from a single team and one source, rather than Linux's "three thousand unrelated bits of code flying in close formation". Me, I wouldn't know; all I care about is that commands like /dmesg/ and /top/ and /fdisk/ do what I expect, which is more than they do on Solaris, say. » And yet, now that significant chunks of the Linux underpinnings are being combined into one purpose-written close-knit chunk, designed by a single team, the same sort of people that praise *BSD for its conceptual unity are harshly damning the thing bringing comparable unity to Linux. Odd, that. -- Liam Proven • Profile: http://lproven.livejournal.com/profile Email: lpro...@cix.co.uk • GMail/G+/Twitter/Flickr/Facebook: lproven MSN: lpro...@hotmail.com • Skype/AIM/Yahoo/LinkedIn: liamproven Cell/Mobiles: +44 7939-087884 (UK) • +420 702 829 053 (ČR)
