Daniel Campbell wrote: > Do you know the design consequences of opt-in versus opt-out? I'll keep > this short: When evolving a codebase, new behavior for core parts of the > system should not be pushed or forced on users. If you must, keep the > old behavior around as a default and allow users to try the new thing by > explicitly opting in. The new naming in whichever udev started the mess > did it the exact opposite (and wrong) way.
Good luck with that argument; you have to bear in mind Gentoo devs are mostly fresh out of Uni (or still in it.) They're not very experienced iow, as a rule, apart from in Gentoo ebuilds and making the tree work together, which is all we ask of them. Oh and usually Java from Uni; they typically have a snobbery about shell as well (and doesn't it show) which is quite amusing when one considers their implementation language. (No this is not to the topic per se: it's a wider point that I had to repeat to someone recently, who apparently found the insight very useful. So I put it out there for other users, or those to come. I have zero interest in arguing the toss with anyone: you're welcome to your opinion, that's mine. You ain't gonna change it, so don't bother trying. Feel free to rant amongst yourselves. ;) The point is that this is actually why Gentoo is a very good place for a "developer" to cut hir teeth: they learn from the other users when they install, and usually come up through the forums, where if you've ever been to OTW, the difference between a personal attack and criticism of someone's work is blatantly obvious. Further they have to run any major design ideas past that same experienced user-base, who had the rough edges knocked off ages ago, and simply want it to work for everyone. They don't always see it like that, ofc, but I for one remember thinking much dumber things. [1] > The way the new behavior was introduced may have led users of single-NIC > systems to believe that the old way was broken, when as demonstrated > through past use, works *just fine* for single-NIC machines. It was > *multi-NIC* use that wasn't as predictive and needed the fix, not > *single*. It's basically using poor design/defaults decisions to smear > existing technology dishonestly. Technical propaganda, so to speak. Even more amusing when you consider that the original race that was so terrible it justified breaking the machines of those it was supposedly in aid of, as well as those of people who had zero use for it, yet were apparently the target market, was in fact implemented by the same set of "early userspace experts" who put themselves forward as such 5 years previously. I personally have no words to describe such a situation beyond "idiocy". > Getting back to the original topic, cgroups sound like a pretty neat > idea that other init systems could benefit from. If the systemd guys are > willing to work on that subsystem for themselves, are they also > interested in seeing what other init systems would want from cgroups? This is actually what I posted about: I know qnikst already implemented a large chunk of functionality in openrc and was concerned about the "proposed changes" mainly because as usual it was a grand statement of intent, with little in the way of coherent content. But we're spitting in the wind: you can't expect amateurs who've backed themselves into a corner, full of ego-attachment to their "work", to ever admit it's crap, or that they fscked-up. Certainly not based on the record of this team. > Certainly there's more room for development and/or standardization on an > API instead of a single project having all the influence. I think their > presence and activity with cgroups could be beneficial if policed by > another init system project that's not trying to infect every Linux > distro. Yes one would think before embarking on such a venture they'd at least take a look at other things that also run on Linux in the same domain, such as s6, runit or openrc. But no, systemd is allowed to take them over, but no consideration can be given to those use-cases, because "this is only about cgroups." It's orthogonal, maan. You're not alone; careful though as you just get labelled a "hater" even when you've tried your damndest to collaborate with the "other side" (who are the only ones even interested in "sides") only to come up against groupthink, double-speak, and monkeys flinging poo. "You're not with us so you *must* be against us!" "No. We just do not care." "Ah you is haterz." "Bye then; enjoy the kool-aid." [1] http://www.iusedtobelieve.com/ -- #friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)
