4 ms·

(Incoming downvotes. Sorry I can't contain myself. Yes, it's sarcasm and I hate that I feel like I have to preface this) >>> improve intransitive verb

by kylek 7y ago

(Incoming downvotes. Sorry I can't contain myself. Yes, it's sarcasm and I hate that I feel like I have to preface this) >>> improve intransitive verb To raise to a more desirable or more excellent quality or condition; make better. intransitive verb To increase the productivity or value of (land or property). intransitive verb To become better. >>> Either we need a new definition, or start calling it GNU/systemd edit: What I'm actually trying to get at is- "are all distros that implement systemd expected to jump on every major architectural change that Lennart&co come up with?" Is this not asking a lot? That's a ton of weight and a lot decisions that have been traditionally owned by the distros. Maybe nobody actually wants to think about this stuff, though.

bitwize 7y ago
> What I'm actually trying to get at is- "are all distros that implement systemd expected to jump on every major architectural change that Lennart&co come up with?" Yes. > Is this not asking a lot? It isn't. Especially since Lennart & co. have done most of the hard work. > That's a ton of weight and a lot decisions that have been traditionally owned by the distros. That's kind of the point. The goal of systemd is to provide a single, unified, comprehensive Linux platform and undo some of the fragmentation that has occurred in the Linux space between distributions. For example, systemd service files work the same irrespective of distro. Upstream developers need supply only one service file that can then be used on all distros.
- kylek 7y ago
  >> That's kind of the point. The goal of systemd is to provide a single, unified, comprehensive Linux platform and undo some of the fragmentation that has occurred in the Linux space between distributions. Huh I guess I hadn't thought of it that way. I've always viewed the "fragmentation" (opinionated differences giving the end-user more choice) between distros as a feature, not a bug. I don't know, I still feel the "systemd or not" choice still comes off a bit ham-handed. But maybe it doesn't matter anymore (considering that all old/big distros that wanted to implement it probably already have, and any new one is free to use it or not). Probably also has to do with the barrier-to-entry of using Linux being far lower than it used to be (maybe in part due to systemd?)
  - johnny22 7y ago
    I think it really depends on what "fragmentatation" is. I think people think different libcs, compilers, DEs are mostly good. I definitely think it is ridiculous though, that I couldn't use something seemingly fundamental like an init script across distros.
    - kylek 7y ago
      That's sort of what I meant by the barrier-to-entry comment. Maybe a decade ago one might say: an init script is simple, "anyone" (read: anyone using linux 10 years ago) should be able to throw one together to get something to start. That "anyone" has likely already put in a certain amount of effort to learn some of the grittier parts of the system they're using. Ain't nobody got time for details like that anymore :)
  - scrollaway 7y ago
    > I've always viewed the "fragmentation" (opinionated differences giving the end-user more choice) between distros as a feature, not a bug. I see this opinion quite often and I think it's based far too much on "ancient wisdom" and not actually grounded in reality. Because in practice, the fragmentation has meant that people creating/selling cross-platform desktop apps take one look at linux and think: "Yeah, this isn't worth it". It means a poorer user experience for Linux novices (and even advanced users), because documentation doesn't always match what's on their desktop. They're missing binaries. Arguments are different. Things are implemented differently not even for the sake of being different, but simply because there was no opportunity to reuse the work, so none was reused (and now backwards-compatibility is in the way of changing that). It also means that there's a ridiculous amount of duplicated work between all the distributions. That duplicated work takes a toll on all distributions, which run on limited, usually-volunteer manpower. Those distributions with less manpower, the ones that will actually try new things rather than do something slightly-different, are the ones that are more likely to die. The fragmentation between things that are essentially-the-same creates a higher effort barrier to creating actual new things. systemd is slowly fixing all of this, and thank fuck.
    - 7y ago
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

by kylek 7y ago

bitwize 7y ago

> What I'm actually trying to get at is- "are all distros that implement systemd expected to jump on every major architectural change that Lennart&co come up with?" Yes. > Is this not asking a lot? It isn't. Especially since Lennart & co. have done most of the hard work. > That's a ton of weight and a lot decisions that have been traditionally owned by the distros. That's kind of the point. The goal of systemd is to provide a single, unified, comprehensive Linux platform and undo some of the fragmentation that has occurred in the Linux space between distributions. For example, systemd service files work the same irrespective of distro. Upstream developers need supply only one service file that can then be used on all distros.

kylek 7y ago
>> That's kind of the point. The goal of systemd is to provide a single, unified, comprehensive Linux platform and undo some of the fragmentation that has occurred in the Linux space between distributions. Huh I guess I hadn't thought of it that way. I've always viewed the "fragmentation" (opinionated differences giving the end-user more choice) between distros as a feature, not a bug. I don't know, I still feel the "systemd or not" choice still comes off a bit ham-handed. But maybe it doesn't matter anymore (considering that all old/big distros that wanted to implement it probably already have, and any new one is free to use it or not). Probably also has to do with the barrier-to-entry of using Linux being far lower than it used to be (maybe in part due to systemd?)
- johnny22 7y ago
  I think it really depends on what "fragmentatation" is. I think people think different libcs, compilers, DEs are mostly good. I definitely think it is ridiculous though, that I couldn't use something seemingly fundamental like an init script across distros.
  - kylek 7y ago
    That's sort of what I meant by the barrier-to-entry comment. Maybe a decade ago one might say: an init script is simple, "anyone" (read: anyone using linux 10 years ago) should be able to throw one together to get something to start. That "anyone" has likely already put in a certain amount of effort to learn some of the grittier parts of the system they're using. Ain't nobody got time for details like that anymore :)
- scrollaway 7y ago
  > I've always viewed the "fragmentation" (opinionated differences giving the end-user more choice) between distros as a feature, not a bug. I see this opinion quite often and I think it's based far too much on "ancient wisdom" and not actually grounded in reality. Because in practice, the fragmentation has meant that people creating/selling cross-platform desktop apps take one look at linux and think: "Yeah, this isn't worth it". It means a poorer user experience for Linux novices (and even advanced users), because documentation doesn't always match what's on their desktop. They're missing binaries. Arguments are different. Things are implemented differently not even for the sake of being different, but simply because there was no opportunity to reuse the work, so none was reused (and now backwards-compatibility is in the way of changing that). It also means that there's a ridiculous amount of duplicated work between all the distributions. That duplicated work takes a toll on all distributions, which run on limited, usually-volunteer manpower. Those distributions with less manpower, the ones that will actually try new things rather than do something slightly-different, are the ones that are more likely to die. The fragmentation between things that are essentially-the-same creates a higher effort barrier to creating actual new things. systemd is slowly fixing all of this, and thank fuck.
  - 7y ago
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]