On 03/26/2015 06:53 PM, Jude Nelson wrote:
Hi John,
[...]
I took a stab at stating what "Unix software design philosophy" means
earlier up the thread, but I'll reproduce it here for your convenience:
"Do one thing and do it well."
It looks to me like you're trying to work backwards for a definition of
"Unix" that excludes systemd while retaining all the software that does
not adhere to that design philosophy. I think that's a bad idea-- it
doesn't help the people currently gutting systemd, and it gives future
community members a bureacratic tool to bully any project that isn't a
domain-specific library.
It's irrelevant whether Chromium, Openshot, Qt, and a thousand other
applications adhere to the Unix philosophy. Their designs aren't
predicated upon having elevated status in the OS. Their packaging,
bugfixing, mainenance, and discussion should proceed without any regard
for what the definition of Unix is.
Priority for the security, maintainability, and accessibility of the
infrastructure that boots and manages everything else is priority enough.
-Jonathan
_______________________________________________
Dng mailing list
Dng@lists.dyne.org
https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
