[rescue] Linux wet paint, was Re: Spark10 CPU question (must fix - SPARC damnit :-) )

[Liam Proven]

On 18 December 2016 at 14:05, Rich Kulawiec <rsk at gsp.org> wrote:
> Yes.  I use it as part of the interview process: those who have achieved
> sufficient technical maturity and understand the Software Tools approach
> as well as the fundamentals of the Unix philosophy can evaluate -- and
> dismiss -- systemd in just a few minutes.  It is obvious on inspection.

Could you spell it out for me? I am trying to fully understand this.

The main caveats I'm aware of are:

* a large, complex process as PID 1 is undesirable
* logging that is not to a plain text file is undesirable

I appreciate both, but OTOH both bring advantages too.

> Those who haven't are enchanted by its many bells and whistles, unable
> to realize that the best possible future development path for systemd
> would be to throw it away and learn from its mistakes.

And yet every major distro has now switched to it. I can't remember
such unanimous uptake of a controversial new package in a decade, and
only 2-3 times in the last 25y.

libc5/glibc was contentious but everyone moved across in the end.

GNOME 2 won over everyone except some outliers, but GNOME 3 destroyed that.

I can't think of anything else,  not at system level. And even GNOME
barely qualifies as that!

It's not because it's Red Hat. RPM is nowhere near so popular, for instance.

It *must* by simple deductive logic have strong arguments going for it
or not everyone would be leaping aboard the boat.

And yet, almost all I read and hear is hate hate hate, with few actual
specifics.

--
Liam Proven b" Profile: https://about.me/liamproven
Email: lproven at cix.co.uk b" Google Mail/Talk/Plus: lproven at gmail.com
Twitter/Facebook/Flickr: lproven b" Skype/LinkedIn/AIM/Yahoo: liamproven
UK: +44 7939-087884 b" DR/WhatsApp/Telegram/Signal: +420 702 829 053