This is filled with platitudes, but doesn't address any of the substantitive questions.
For example, is it wise to have an init system also control su as well as DHCPd. ? also, are we transitioning from gnu-linux to lennartix by ditching the unix philosophy ? quite frankly this seems like the typical practice of embrace - extend - extinguish. On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Keith Lofstrom <kei...@gate.kl-ic.com> wrote: > Like many recent linux changes, systemd solves a lot of problems > compared to the kluges that it replaces, but it was not deployed > with other people and existing infrastructure in mind. So, the > burden of adapting to such changes is foisted on the rest of us. > > While glittery shiny first impressions are nice, pain rules > our long term reaction to new things. A distro that is easy > 90% of the time and ridiculously difficult 10% of the time is > less likely to endure than something that is 30% easy and 1% > difficult. Change is never easy, and migration is difficult. > > For me, a computer is a structure that I embellish with my own > data, procedures, adaptions, and improvements. Changing the > structure means I must translate all of that, without help. > > It's like replacing the wooden beams of my house with carbon > fiber. That might help in an earthquake, but the cost of > the transition would be more devastating than an earthquake. > Instead, I added kludges and retrofits to achieve the same > earthquake protection. Build new houses with carbon fiber if > you wish, but don't abandon the installed base that is better > improved than replaced. If you must change house structure, > make your carbon fiber install cheap and painless. > > We invest in our computers, and change invalidates many of our > investments. If those who wish to impose these changes had > to pay the full cost of their decisions, and help us recoup > our lost investments, they would make different decisions, > and provide tools that facilitate change and adaption. > > This is an opportunity hiding in a problem, for sane profit- > seeking entrepreneurs (if there are any left in our community). > Focusing on the needs of humans, rather than the needs of the > machines. Modelling change against the entire installed base, > instead of a couple dozen configurations favored by developers. > > At a guess, linux designed for low cost mass deployment and long > term stability might make new development five times harder for > developers, almost cost-free for customers, and thus 100x cheaper > overall, assuming millions of customers willing to pay a little > something to avoid pain. For those of us ready to graduate from > "gratis" Linux to "least total cost" Linux, a new distro to fill > the role that Redhat used to fill (stodgy but predictable) would > be welcomed, and could be very profitable. > > Keith > > -- > Keith Lofstrom kei...@keithl.com > _______________________________________________ > PLUG mailing list > PLUG@lists.pdxlinux.org > http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug > _______________________________________________ PLUG mailing list PLUG@lists.pdxlinux.org http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
