is it the future?

[Mike Wright]

09/11/2014 05:04 PM, Bill Oliver wrote:
> 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.
>

I've been holding my nose and keeping my mouth shut for the last couple 
of years but I have to concur.  Time was,  a signature with `uptime` 
showing many hundreds of days, if not multiple years, was a badge of 
honor.  Now people cavalierly toss out, "... and reboot".

I've been expecting that fedora 95 release notes will peacock the 
addition of a start button and a BSOD as a feature. (place whichever 
emoticon applies, here)

fedora is dead.  Long live fedora.

MWright