On 24/01/2013 13:09, Adam Borowski wrote: > [...] > * the monolithic design has a huge freeness problem. To do anything not on > a rigid list of features you need to learn the intricaties of a large > complex system, and you can be certain that even if you manage to do so, > your patches will have a hard time getting accepted, and features you base > your code on will be thrown away on a whim every couple of years or so. > > * In Unix, on the other hand, the barrier is typically mere knowledge of > scripting, in shell or any language of your preference. Small > components are easy to document (in man pages, etc) by the virtue of > no single part being complex. > > * the Unix way almost guarantees you will do things wrong. While writing > something that works is easy, making it work in corner cases requires > serious research every time. Unlike a streamlined system, there's a > twisty maze of little init scripts, all alike -- yet usually with small > differences that do matter. Managing interactions becomes hard. > > * A monolithic system has a global view of the system, instead of a > guerilla war in every corner.
* But if it ever fails due to a bug within it, $DEITY help you, because
you're going to have to go through everything mentioned in your first
point here (save the issues with getting patches accepted)
--
Kind regards,
Loong Jin
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
