Le 22/08/2012 13:59, Jerry a écrit :
On Wed, 22 Aug 2012 12:29:56 +0200
Michel Talon articulated:
David Jackson said:
In reference to the claims that systemd developers "do not care
about portability", this is deceptive and misleading.
You should read the following interview of Lennart Poettering
http://linuxfr.org/nodes/86687/comments/1249943
The amount of hubris and self confidence he deploys is really
astounding. I will just quote two extracts:
" LinuxFr.org : Systemd use a lot of Linux only technologies (cgroups,
udev, fanotify, timerfd, signalfd, etc). Do you really think the Linux
API has been taking the role of the POSIX API and the other systems
are irrelevant ?
Lennart : Yes, I don't think BSD is really too relevant anymore, and I
think that this implied requirement for compatibility with those
systems when somebody hacks software for the free desktop or
ecosystem is a burden, and holds us back for little benefit. "
and cherry on the cake
"LinuxFr.org : Why Linux desktop hasn't been adopted by the
mainstream users ? Linus Torvalds seems to think it's mostly a social
issue and not a technical one. Do you agree with him ?
Lennart : I think we weren't innovative enough in the interface, and
we didn't have a convincing message and clear platform. If you accept
MacOS as benchmark for user interfaces, then we weren't really
matching it, at best copying it. I think this is changing now, with
GNOME 3 which is a big step forward as an interface for Linux and for
the first time is something that has been strictly designed under UI
design guidelines. "
The critics complain that the new ideas merely introduces de minimis
modifications and does nothing to amend the real faults in the system.
The real problem is that true innovative development in FreeBSD has
become stagnant. It has taken, and in some cases still not achieved
equal standings with other OSs in many areas. Wireless technology, full
USB support to name a few. It is ALWAYS easier to blame others for our
failures than to admit the problem lies within ourselves.
I would not call FreeBSD approach a failure, from my point of view it is
definitely a choice. FreeBSD is all about the "Least Astonishment". Sure
it results in new technologies and paradigm making their way into the OS
really slowly (though in the case of both wifi and USB (and ACPI by the
way) most of the problem still lies in incomplete specs and dubious
standard compliance from manufacturers).
But on the other hand it also results in a system that is extremely
coherent with himself and extremely stable over time. Almost every
script I wrote under FreeBSD 4.x still work flawlessly in 9.1.
In fact most *BSD contributors, write code for their needs - they
improve FreeBSD because they need the new stuff, not because they have
an agenda or a product to sell. Of course non vital improvement
(graphics, sounds, 3D etc.) takes longer to be implemented. But I
personally prefer an ugly frontend with a robust motor under the hood
than the contrary.
Thank God
that everyone is not the complacent. Where would civilization be now if
Edison had considered the candle the ultimate technological advancement
in portable lighting or if Bell had considered the telegraph the
pinnacle of high speed communication. Change is hard -- it always has
been. There exists a strong subculture that would rather curse the
darkness then light a candle. Debating with them is a waste of time.
You should never argue with idiots because they will just drag you down
to their level....then beat you with experience. Simple ignore them and
when time has passed them by and proven you right, you can smile
knowing that you were. The frontiers are littered with "dinosaurs". You
could also enjoy a great day of golf which beats the hell out of
arguing with those married to the past.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
