Am 17.09.2014 um 22:58 schrieb Mark David Dumlao: > > > On Sep 18, 2014 2:37 AM, "Volker Armin Hemmann" > <volkerar...@googlemail.com <mailto:volkerar...@googlemail.com>> wrote: > > > > Am 17.09.2014 um 18:06 schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés: > > > This is highly off-topic, and systemd-related, so if you don't want > > > your breakfast with a healthy amount of flames, skip it. > > > > > > iTWire posted an interview with Linus Torvalds[1], where the Big > > > Penguin himself gave a succinct and pretty fair opinion on systemd. > > > The gist of it can be resumed in two lines: > > > > > > "I don't personally mind systemd, and in fact my main desktop and > > > laptop both run it." > > > > > > I post it here because several times in the last discussions about > > > systemd, there was people asking what opinion Linus had about systemd. > > > I personally don't think Linus particular opinion matters at all in > > > this particular issue; in general people who likes systemd will > > > continue to like it, and people who despises it will continue to do > > > so, for any good, bad, real or imaginary reason. However, I *really* > > > like several things Linus says in the interview; some juicy bits: > > > > > > • "So I think many of the "original ideals" of UNIX are these days > > > more of a mindset issue than necessarily reflecting reality of the > > > situation." > > > > > > • "There's still value in understanding the traditional UNIX "do one > > > thing and do it well" model where many workflows can be done as a > > > pipeline of simple tools each adding their own value, but let's face > > > it, it's not how complex systems really work, and it's not how major > > > applications have been working or been designed for a long time. It's > > > a useful simplification, and it's still true at *some* level, but I > > > think it's also clear that it doesn't really describe most of > > > reality." > > > > > > • "...systemd is in no way the piece that breaks with old UNIX > legacy." > > > > > > • " I'm still old-fashioned enough that I like my log-files in text, > > > not binary, so I think sometimes systemd hasn't necessarily had the > > > best of taste, but hey, details..[.]" > > > > > > • (About the "single-point-of-failure" "argument") "I think people are > > > digging for excuses. I mean, if that is a reason to not use a piece of > > > software, then you shouldn't use the kernel either." > > > > > > • "And there's a classic term for it in the BSD camps: "bikeshed > > > painting", which is very much about how random people can feel like > > > they have the ability to discuss superficial issues, because everybody > > > feels that they can give an opinion on the color choice. So issues > > > that are superficial get a lot more noise. Then when it comes to > > > actual hard and deep technical decisions, people (sometimes) realise > > > that they just don't know enough, and they won't give that the same > > > kind of mouth-time." > > > > > > It's an interesting read; I highly recommend it. > > > > > > [1] > http://www.itwire.com/business-it-news/open-source/65402-torvalds-says-he-has-no-strong-opinions-on-systemd > > > > Now you use this to advertise for systemd? > > > > Systemd fanbois are becoming more and more desperate. > > > > Oh give it a rest volker. its been obvious for years on this list that > when it really came down to it, many systemd "critics" (and i airquote > that because the amount of critical thinking is imaginary) were almost > entirely devoid of technical arguments when or even background > knowledge, to the point of embarassing themselves on the amount of > "unix" knowledge they purport to know. > > theres been a terrible history of being blatantly ignorant about what > a software does and yet running the mouth about why its wrong, as if > you had a better idea on how to coordinate hundreds of disparate > develeoper projects on how to run their own ships. blatantly refusing > to give a crap what an "init thingy" is, or showing a hilarious > understanding of what fhs is supposed to do or solve, to downright > manufacturing what the /usr split was supposed to be about, or denying > that boot up race conditions were a thing... the list goes on and it > only betrays the haters' biases. > > fact of the matter is running to Linus' latest flame on udev or > systemd or fhs etc has been a standard go-to for haters t bring up for > years past... and now that Linus is like "well its okay blablabla" now > the systemd peeps are desperate? > > no, you are. go read yourself some fucking man pages, maybe youll > learn a little unix. >
oh give it a rest Mark. Its been obvious for years on this list that systemd fanbois are constantly advocating their crap. From 'it boots so much faster' to 'Linus does not hate it'. Do we really have to endure it? With all the fuckups that had happened in the past and the systemd-devs were unable to admit? Seriously, keep the kindergarten away, ok? There are enough mailing lists where you can pat each others back and tell yourselves how great systemd is. You don't need to advertise it EVERYWHERE.
