BLU Discuss list archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Discuss] SysVinit vs. systemd
- Subject: [Discuss] SysVinit vs. systemd
- From: jabr at blu.org (John Abreau)
- Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 22:23:47 -0400
- In-reply-to: <5411058F.6010208@gmail.com>
- References: <5411058F.6010208@gmail.com>
That seems to be the guiding philosophy of the Gnome3 development team: throw away and rewrite anything in Linux that's mature and robust, because it doesn't have that new car smell! On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 10:14 PM, Tom Metro <tmetro+blu at gmail.com> wrote: > http://www.infoworld.com/print/248950 > > Mike Gancarz sums up the Unix philosophy: 1. Small is beautiful. 2. > Make each program do one thing well. ... We have built the Internet > and all modern Internet services on those principles. Systemd's design > and implementation violates nearly all of them. > > Should it be a surprise that so many long-term Unix and Linux > developers, architects, and administrators recoil at the thought of > something like systemd? It might seem that the design of systemd > purposefully dispensed with the wisdom of 45 years of Unix development > and struck out in a different direction just to spite the old guard. > [...] > > > Opinions? > > -Tom > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > Discuss at blu.org > http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss > -- John Abreau / Executive Director, Boston Linux & Unix Email jabr at blu.org / WWW http://www.abreau.net / PGP-Key-ID 0x920063C6 PGP-Key-Fingerprint A5AD 6BE1 FEFE 8E4F 5C23 C2D0 E885 E17C 9200 63C6
- References:
- [Discuss] SysVinit vs. systemd
- From: tmetro+blu at gmail.com (Tom Metro)
- [Discuss] SysVinit vs. systemd
- Prev by Date: [Discuss] SysVinit vs. systemd
- Next by Date: [Discuss] SysVinit vs. systemd
- Previous by thread: [Discuss] SysVinit vs. systemd
- Next by thread: [Discuss] SysVinit vs. systemd
- Index(es):