On 02/11/14 14:56, Miles Fidelman wrote: > 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 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.
<snipped> >> > > Well... my main argument It's not an "argument" - it's a "question", you keeping making that assertion - and refusing to provide a straight answer, instead making more assertions you won't or can't support - and drawing false conclusions. Which does nothing to aid a discussion and serves only to drown out the original subject in a flood of FUD. > would be that "the Unix way" - is a design > philosophy that has served the Unix ecosystem VERY well for a very long > time - particularly as regards supporting a thriving ecosystem of open > source software, that has both supported evolution of technology, > innovation by developers, and flexibility in the configuration and > application of systems by end users. > > A fundamental shift from that approach, toward monolithic code, and > heavily intertwined dependencies, particularly when that code is being > promulgated by a developer with a very publicly stated desire to reshape > Linux in fundamental ways, is very dangerous and ill-considered. > > When Debian - which has been, IMHO, the truest to the "heart" of Linux > development, it is IMHO both a travesty and a tragedy. Again - *not an answer to the question*, just a tangential collection of assertions which do nothing to support your original claim - or justify this hijacking of the thread. While you may not have heard of the term Gish Gallop - it's exactly what you are doing. Starting with the "UNIX Way".... when discussing GNU/Linux instead of Solaris. (dismayed and dissapointed) > > Miles Fidelman > > > If you can't "put up", and won't "let up", while constantly demanding of others - it seems unreasonable to claim *you* are being bullied or forced to do something against your will while consuming the output of others. -- "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/545968c9.9070...@gmail.com
