3 ms·
> The "Unix Philosophy" of "do one thing and do it well" isn't just a tagline. That philosophy is cherished because it's been proven to be valuable. Replacing i
by KirinDave 9y ago
> The "Unix Philosophy" of "do one thing and do it well" isn't just a tagline. That philosophy is cherished because it's been proven to be valuable. Replacing init with something that moves away from that is certainly worthy of questioning, if not outright criticism.
Systemd is a whole group of small, factored tools that call to each other. This complaint gets trotted out a lot and I lump it in with the "It is different because it has new features."
- mindcrime 9y agoSystemd is a whole group of small, factored tools that call to each other. So, I haven't tried the exercise myself, so maybe it's easier than I've been lead to believe; but I keep hearing that the problem is that those "small, factored tools" talk to each other and pretty much only each other and that it's very difficult to, eg, rip out and replace just one of them. The argument, as I understand it, is that SystemD is "modular" in theory, but is a monolith in all practical terms. Note that I'm not arguing for this position so much as restating it to the extent that I understand it. I'm currently using SystemD and while I have my doubts about it, it doesn't cause me any specific pain ATM, so I haven't bothered messing with it.
- digi_owl 9y agoIt is not just that they only talk to each other, but that the way they talk to each other is willfully undocumented and fluid, so that the devs can change things at their whim.
- JdeBP 9y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13390245 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13390245
- cjsthompson 9y agoWhat systemd naysayers mean by "modular", "do one thing and do it well", "non-monolithic" is a miriad of independently developed unstandardized command-line tools programmed by individual hobbyists tinkerers like themselves. Which even *BSD and earlier unixes didn't do.