On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 7:50 PM, Dylan Cali <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 9:33 PM, William Tracy <[email protected]> wrote: >> As far as I can tell, the ideas described in that essay have nothing in >> particular to do with systemd other than sharing the same authors. > > > From the article (emphasis added): > > "I now want to take the opportunity to explain a bit where we want to > take this with systemd in the longer run, __and what we want to build > out of it__." > > "The systemd cabal... recently met in Berlin about all these things, > and tried to come up with a scheme that is somewhat simple, but tries > to solve the issues generically, for all use-cases, __as part of the > systemd project__." > -- > http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev > FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ > Unsubscribe: See the above information page
The UNIX Philosophy has always worked, is time tested and proven, and always has shown that the more modular and bazaar based the projects involved, the greater the potential of the outcome. However, many in today's world don't see that founding principles work and they need to not just bring change but a revolution, and that can be bad for everyone. I honestly doubt systemd will accomplish any goals in GNU/Linux, unless you count reinventing a wheel to make it "more rounder". If anything, the only accomplishment it could achieve if you dare to class it as an achievement, unless Linus says no, is a completely broken udev implementation for non-systemd systems if they kill off netlink for kdbus, unless D-Bus can be patched to run kdbus intercepts. If they are out to intentionally break core system utility functions, this is bad, if not something that should be stopped before it has the potential to ruin GNU/Linux as a whole, unless we really want to go back to haldaemon, hotplug, and devfsd any time soon. -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
