Re: Boycott Systemd

On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 12:58:46 -0500
Barry Schwartz <[email protected]> wrote:

> 
> ‘Diversity’ here is deviation from established Unix/POSIX philosophy
> in system design. Years of effort to simplify programming are being
> thrown away on grounds that resemble common arguments in favor of the
> ‘tight integration’ that is Microsoft Windows. I mean, seriously, many
> of the pro-systemd arguments are like those I have heard for using
> Windows: that applications ‘just work’, because they were written for
> a dominant system.
> 

Good design is highly flexible and configurable with little assumption
made on the nature or needs of the user.

Let's consider a simple program to display digital images.  A good program
design will not only contain built-in routines to accommodate the standard
image formats but will also provide non-specific raster buffers to allow
a user to view unconventional or even non-existent formats.  A good program
design will also make no assumptions about the nature of the image data but
rather allow the user to create any needed specifications.  A professional
program thus allows both standard conventions but keeps the overall capability
unrestricted and open ended.

As best as I can understand (I am not an expert in systems programming)
under Torvalds the Linux OS conforms to such professional design goals.

> 
> What I really fear, though, is what if one day the kernel team is a
> different entity, more like other entities in the Linux world?
> 

Someone has to write an apocalyptic novel about Linus Torvalds being
assassinated and his role taken over by the evil figures from ???.