previously on this list Gustav Fransson Nyvell contributed:
> UNIX is very old. Some hang on to one or two principles like they're the
> word of god. For example, in this discussion, that one tool should do
> one thing and do it well. It kind of makes you blind. Look at the bigger
> picture. Isn't systemd doing one thing and doing it well? Sure, it's
> opaque, I guess
Not at all and I could write pages about how damaging it is but won't.
I'm successfully abandoning Linux on everything but my TVs and phone
(one day, them too I expect).
Systemd's design page on freedesktop.org (how ironic) is more of a
collection of largely incorrect thoughts that demonstrate UNIX
inexperience than a specification or design document should rightly be
seen as a good indicator of how thoughtless it's design is. RedHat had
goals and I am sure it is meeting them but do not think for one second
that RedHats goals are aligned with general users beyond replacing
Linux's rediculously overcomplicated init scripts (the carrot), the
subject of this thread is the stick. RedHats userland code has
surprisingly poor reputations especially for a multi-billion dollar
company. It wouldn't surprise me if the following is actually part of
the true design document and knowingly leveraged to satisfy their true
agenda. Either that or RedHat is simply unprofessional.
"There are two ways of constructing a software design. One is to make
it so simple that there are OBVIOUSLY no deficiencies. And the other is
to make it so complicated that there are no OBVIOUS deficiencies"
Professor C. A. R. Hoare
The 1980 Turing award lecture
--
_______________________________________________________________________
'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work
together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a
universal interface'
(Doug McIlroy)
In Other Words - Don't design like polkit or systemd
_______________________________________________________________________
