5 ms·

"... an ongoing effort to obsolete the old, cross-Unix standard network administration and diagnosis commands of ifconfig, netstat and the like and replace them

"... an ongoing effort to obsolete the old, cross-Unix standard network administration and diagnosis commands of ifconfig, netstat and the like and replace them with fresh new Linux specific things like ss and the ip suite." Old does not mean bad but Linux chooses that path as it moves further away from UNIX and being a Unix-like system in its pursuit to be Windows.

dijit 8y ago
I would like to argue with you, but then again, systemd exists (and is thriving) while being the most windows-like software existing by default on all popular linux distributions. EDIT: I guess I have to clarify this statement a little; In Windows the concept of "logging" is up to the event manager, this mirrors journalctl. To be more precise they seem to focus on desktop operating systems with an example being the unit file itself: "The syntax is inspired by XDG Desktop Entry Specification .desktop files, which are in turn inspired by Microsoft Windows .ini files.", maybe you prefer talking about firewalld and it's "Zones" which are clearly inspired by desktop use. (Laptops more specifically). There was something that I'm forgetting though, a terminology that was only used by microsoft to describe something and systemd used exactly the same terminology. It was very esoteric terminology though, I'm trying to find a reference.
xtrapolate 8y ago
> "Old does not mean bad" It doesn't automatically mean "good" either. > "in its pursuit to be Windows" Would you please elaborate?
- gerbilly 8y ago
  Windows subsumes a lot of small network daemons into a monolithic process called SVCHOST.EXE. Systemd does a similar thing.
  - sdfgdfhjdgj 8y ago
    Oh come on, this FUD is getting old. At least make up something new from time to time.
  - theamk 8y ago
    What are you talking about? Systemd (pid 1) just does socket activation, it has no high level functionality. Yes, there are related programs like systemd-timesyncd, but they are completely separate processes, and can be managed separately and even omitted altogether. Now, traditional BSD inetd had discard, chargen, echo, ... protocol support, which means that it was actually more integrated that systemd.
- sureaboutthis 8y ago
  A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. The article speaks of old software but, instead of fixing what it has and being standards compliant, it chooses to break away and do its own thing along with the new bugs and other issues which will surely arise.
  - xtrapolate 8y ago
    > "instead of fixing what it has and being standards compliant, it chooses to break away and do its own thing along with the new bugs and other issues which will surely arise." Well, people are still free to maintain and improve those older tools and bring them up to par with newer standards, if they want to. Others would argue it's time to start phasing out code and so-called "standards" we've had since the early 90s in spirit of refactoring various elements in the ecosystem. As with most such efforts - lots of code will be thrown away, some of it will be re-used and re-purposed. I'd argue that in the long run - it's probably a necessary intervention.
    - Karunamon 8y ago
      They don't need to change the frontend to change the backend. There's a certain cognitive load to having to re-learn basic commands, and a certain annoyance when those changes are of little benefit to my day-to-day sysadmin duties.
    - felixgallo 8y ago
      "others" would be right, but the present team doing the refactoring is actively, aggressively incompetent, doesn't listen to even constructive feedback, closes critical bugs with snarky comments, refuses outside contributions, claim outside contributions are literally impossible, and absorbs independent functionality in the name of empire building. So the notional idea of 'refactoring' being better -- yes! But with the constraint being that the people doing the refactoring have to be at least as wise, tasteful, mature, sensible, and thoughtful as the people who came before.
      - xtrapolate 8y ago
kps 8y ago
“GNU's Not Unix”. Don't say they didn't warn you.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

dijit 8y ago

I would like to argue with you, but then again, systemd exists (and is thriving) while being the most windows-like software existing by default on all popular linux distributions. EDIT: I guess I have to clarify this statement a little; In Windows the concept of "logging" is up to the event manager, this mirrors journalctl. To be more precise they seem to focus on desktop operating systems with an example being the unit file itself: "The syntax is inspired by XDG Desktop Entry Specification .desktop files, which are in turn inspired by Microsoft Windows .ini files.", maybe you prefer talking about firewalld and it's "Zones" which are clearly inspired by desktop use. (Laptops more specifically). There was something that I'm forgetting though, a terminology that was only used by microsoft to describe something and systemd used exactly the same terminology. It was very esoteric terminology though, I'm trying to find a reference.

xtrapolate 8y ago

> "Old does not mean bad" It doesn't automatically mean "good" either. > "in its pursuit to be Windows" Would you please elaborate?

gerbilly 8y ago
Windows subsumes a lot of small network daemons into a monolithic process called SVCHOST.EXE. Systemd does a similar thing.
- sdfgdfhjdgj 8y ago
  Oh come on, this FUD is getting old. At least make up something new from time to time.
- theamk 8y ago
  What are you talking about? Systemd (pid 1) just does socket activation, it has no high level functionality. Yes, there are related programs like systemd-timesyncd, but they are completely separate processes, and can be managed separately and even omitted altogether. Now, traditional BSD inetd had discard, chargen, echo, ... protocol support, which means that it was actually more integrated that systemd.
sureaboutthis 8y ago
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. The article speaks of old software but, instead of fixing what it has and being standards compliant, it chooses to break away and do its own thing along with the new bugs and other issues which will surely arise.
- xtrapolate 8y ago
  > "instead of fixing what it has and being standards compliant, it chooses to break away and do its own thing along with the new bugs and other issues which will surely arise." Well, people are still free to maintain and improve those older tools and bring them up to par with newer standards, if they want to. Others would argue it's time to start phasing out code and so-called "standards" we've had since the early 90s in spirit of refactoring various elements in the ecosystem. As with most such efforts - lots of code will be thrown away, some of it will be re-used and re-purposed. I'd argue that in the long run - it's probably a necessary intervention.
  - Karunamon 8y ago
    They don't need to change the frontend to change the backend. There's a certain cognitive load to having to re-learn basic commands, and a certain annoyance when those changes are of little benefit to my day-to-day sysadmin duties.
  - felixgallo 8y ago
    "others" would be right, but the present team doing the refactoring is actively, aggressively incompetent, doesn't listen to even constructive feedback, closes critical bugs with snarky comments, refuses outside contributions, claim outside contributions are literally impossible, and absorbs independent functionality in the name of empire building. So the notional idea of 'refactoring' being better -- yes! But with the constraint being that the people doing the refactoring have to be at least as wise, tasteful, mature, sensible, and thoughtful as the people who came before.
    - xtrapolate 8y ago

kps 8y ago

“GNU's Not Unix”. Don't say they didn't warn you.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]