On 14.10.14 08:53, Craig Sanders wrote:
> At best, trivial benefits ("it boots faster", "you don't need to know
> about ulimit -c", "you can almost make it do something similar to what
> you want with some obscure undocumented systemdctl argument") are
> touted as if they're somehow worth the price of switching from a
> robust software ecosystem to a software monoculture.
Craig, that is the most powerful argument in favour of sysyemd I've been
able to find on the net, and reveals why the developers don't claim any
real benefits either.
> i used to call that the Gnome Attitude Problem[1], but it seems to be a
> common attitude with RedHat projects - which is exactly what systemd
> is, Redhat's weapon against Ubuntu which they'd lost huge market share
> to. Which is precisely why debian should have stayed out of it and not
> taken sides in redhat's commercial war with ubuntu....but what happened
> was that Debian took RH's side and within days Ubuntu announced their
> surrender.
Something like that is what I could sense just from the unix-hostile
sequestration of functionality into an obfuscated fuzz-ball. That
systemd's motives are steeped in goals of commercial hegemony can now
hardly be in dispute.
The only question remaining is haw far we will have to go to get away
from Systemdix.
Erik
--
(5) It is always possible to agglutinate multiple separate problems
into a single complex interdependent solution. In most cases
this is a bad idea.
RFC-1925
_______________________________________________
luv-main mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main
