On 02/11/14 13:12, Marty wrote: > On 11/01/2014 10:00 PM, Scott Ferguson wrote: >> On 02/11/14 12:19, Frank McCormick wrote: >>> On 11/01/2014 08:58 PM, Scott Ferguson wrote: >>>> For the purpose of education not to fan silly semantic >>>> pedantics. >>>> >>>> >>>> On 02/11/14 05:24, Miles Fidelman wrote: <snipped> >>>>>> >>>>>> Second, we're not talking about vaguely "unixy" - we're >>>>>> talking about a well developed philosophy of designing >>>>>> things that dates back to Ken Thompson, et. al (c.f., "The >>>>>> UNIX Programming Environment,"or >>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy). >>>> I keep wondering if that's a cause of confusion. >>>> >>>> Why does the Linux kernel, GNU, and the rest of userland*have* >>>> to be done "the UNIX" way?? >>>> >>>> I keep hearing this assertion, but neither Linus Torvalds, or >>>> RMS/seem/ to support it's requirement. Could you expand on why >>>> this is a requirement from the people that produce's point of >>>> view?? >>> >>> In this interview he makes it clear he does not think the entire >>> Linux system has to be done "the UNIX way". >> >> *Which does not answer my question.* >> >> >> I'm well aware that neither RMS or Linus do not advocate that >> "Linux, kernel and userland" are UNIX, not have to be "the UNIX >> way". >> >> I'm asking why (some) people keep insisting that systemd is bad *because >> it's not the UNIX way*. >> >> It sounds like a strawman - but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt >> and asking for clarification. I'm uncertain of your >> intention/comprehension of the question Frank - but your response >> is not an answer to my question. > > My answer is systemd doesn't have to be done the Unix way. It's a > red herring. Nobody complains about Android not being the Unix way. > It's irrelevant.
Thanks for your answer Marty. I agree Never-the-less I was hoping for an answer from those that propose that "systemd is bad because it's not 'the UNIX way'". > > The relevant question is should Debian be implemented the Unix way, That's where we disagree - both in the logic schema employed, and the "relevance". 1. My /understanding/ is that Debian (the Universal Operating System) does not implement "everything" "the UNIX way". Is there a reference to this requirement? 2. The "question" is not that Debian /should/ implement "everything" "the UNIX way" (which would seem to be "shifting the goal posts") > or should one software suite gobble up so many modular services that > Debian is no longer Unix-like in any meaningful way? Aside from the slanted and contentious phrasing (unintentional?) it's:- ; (perhaps unintentionally) sophist rhetoric (the conclusion is only true if the first assumption is - and relies on Debian being "UNIX-like" ; more of the Gish Gallop that characterises much of the (alleged) opposition to systemd. A form of pseudo argument I find distasteful and dishonest. Kind regards -- "Turns out you can't back a winner in the Gish Gallop" ~ disappointed punter -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54559e39.3060...@gmail.com
