On Tue 31 March 2015 09:11:54 Hendrik Boom wrote: > On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 11:16:02AM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote: > > [1] [systemd-devel] I wonder… why systemd provokes this amount of polarity > > and resistance: > > > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-September/thread. > > html > The discussion here contains a quotation about the Unix philosophy (in > an attempt to explain how systemd follows it). I find it summmarises > well the way Devuan believes a Linux system should be organised: > > > 1. Write simple parts connected by clean interfaces. > 2. Clarity is better than cleverness. > 3. Design programs to be connected to other programs. > 4. Separate policy from mechanism; separate interfaces from engines. > 5. Design for simplicity; add complexity only where you must. > 6. Write a big program only when it is clear by demonstration that > nothing else will do. > 7. Rule of Transparency: Design for visibility to make inspection and > debugging easier. > 8. Robustness is the child of transparency and simplicity. > 9. Fold knowledge into data so program logic can be stupid and robust. > 10. In interface design, always do the least surprising thing. > 11. When a program has nothing surprising to say, it should say > nothing. > 12. When you must fail, fail noisily and as soon as possible. > 13. Programmer time is expensive; conserve it in preference to machine > time. > 14. Avoid hand-hacking; write programs to write programs when you can. > 15. Prototype before polishing. Get it working before you optimize it. > 16. Distrust all claims for “one true way”. > 17. Design for the future, because it will be here sooner than you > think. > > (see > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-September/023294.ht > ml for the actual post) > > -- hendrik
Jóhann B. Guðmundsson in http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-September/023294.html asks: > Now after you have read these more of an guidelines than actual > philosophy I would like to hear from you where you think systemd has and > is falling short of them during it's development phase and lifetime so I > can better understand why people seem to be claiming it's not following > these guidelines? I think it's more easy to list where systemd (the project) is _not_ failing: #3 and just maybe also on #12 (unlikely), #14, #15 - I didn't feel like checking just to complete the already overwhelming list of failures. I wonder how anybody could fail to see how systemd massively violates particularly #6 but also #1 #2 #5 and just recently #10 (8.8.8.8 issue). In the end the tone and obvious hybris and arrogance in that mail make it seem unlikely that answering to this guy would result in anything good. I mean somebody claiming that "7 years of function hijacking are hard to beat by any competitor that's just a init system" (paraphrased) is clearly explaining the issue itself as well as exposing his own complete lack to grok the issue. There's a lot more to say about other fallacies in this mail, but I think everybody willing to see will not need me to point all that out. /j
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
