is it the future?

[Bill Oliver]

On Fri, 12 Sep 2014, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:

> On Thu, 2014-09-11 at 17:33 -0500, Dave Ihnat wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 04:30:11PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>>> There are plenty of complaints that can be *legitimately* leveled
>>> against systemd. The correct way to do this ...
>>
>> With all due respect, this isn't a matter of filing bug reports.
>>
>> I've been working on Unix since around 1980; I was teaching Unix internals
>> at Bell Labs in Naperville in 1982.  I've discussed Ritchie streams with
>> Ritchie, and hacked the Unix kernel back then.  I knocked out cut and
>> paste--maybe nothing that stunning, but it cost me a lot when I did it.  I
>> know and understand what the Unix--and, by extension, Linux--philosophy is.
>>
>> I've also worked on DOS, and Windows, since their inception, and many other
>> operating systems before and after both.  I've seen some sensible
>> decisions--although with either DOS or Windows, I'm hard pressed right now
>> to think of them--and some really stupid ideas, such as the Registry.
>>
>> Systemd is one of the stupid ideas.  It flies in the face of everything
>> that makes sense in Unix or Linux, and incorporates some of the most
>> amazingly bad ideas Microsoft ever promulgated.  A single point of failure,
>> an Swiss army knife of totally disparate tasks incorporated in a single
>> process just because we can...
>>
>> I didn't pay attention to this until recently; now that I've dug into it a
>> bit more, I'm both horrified and astonished that it's reached the level of
>> acceptance it has.  This is an amazingly terrible concept, with the
>> unbelievable adjunct that it's been accepted by major Linux distros.
>> Unchecked, this could be the stake in the heart of Linux.  Those who don't
>> know history are doomed to repeat it.
>
> Very well put and eminently sensible. This is the kind of argument that
> needs to be answered, not how many CVEs there are and where to report
> them. If the argument doesn't hold water, then systemd proponents should
> explain why (to repeat, *explain* why, not simply assert the contrary
> position). If it does, isn't it better to rethink it now than when it's
> too late?
>
> poc
>


Over the years, I've seen what I, at least, have perceived as a change
in the atmosphere around linux.  It used to be that the statement of
pride was "we're not like Windows."  Then came the movement to increase
the desktop share by looking more and more like Windows.  Now there
seems to be this idea that what linux should be is not something
*different,* but essentially an open-source implementation of Windows. 
Linux and Windows should be like LibreOffice and Microsoft Office; close
enough so that you don't have to notice the difference.

Systemd is just one more step down that road.


billo