4 ms·

Sure, but that's like saying my coffee machine also makes latte and hot chocolate. I guess what I'm asking is: do any of these taste bad, and how? Perhaps the p

by kreetx 6y ago

Sure, but that's like saying my coffee machine also makes latte and hot chocolate. I guess what I'm asking is: do any of these taste bad, and how? Perhaps the parent had a few of these on his/her mind that could have been listed.

fsflover 6y ago
Unix philosophy has a reason. It allows to easily replace components and simplifies testing. AFAIK it's not easy to replace various parts of systemd, it's very monolithic and it does too many things.
- kreetx 6y ago
  I know the philosophy. What I'm trying to get at is that perhaps the thing that came before was a set of things that didn't quite work together, so now they made something that does. (And was just wondering if there was any specific thing the original parent wanted to replace.)
  - fsflover 6y ago
    Some relevant old comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12335783 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12335783 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12652071 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12652071 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23065830 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23065830 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8672887 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8672887
    - kreetx 6y ago
      Did you just search for "unix philosophy" and found some links? Again, was just interested if you had any specific thing you could point to, but elsewhere in the comments I see now a few concrete issues.
- crazy_hombre 6y ago
  > AFAIK it's not easy to replace various parts of systemd, it's very monolithic and it does too many things. You can easily replace timesyncd with any NTP daemon. You can easily replace networkd with any other networking manager. You can easily replace timer units with cron. You can easily forward log messages to a syslog daemon. You can easily replace systemd-boot with grub or any other boot manager. It should be pretty obvious how baseless the monolithic arguments against systemd are.

by kreetx 6y ago

fsflover 6y ago

Unix philosophy has a reason. It allows to easily replace components and simplifies testing. AFAIK it's not easy to replace various parts of systemd, it's very monolithic and it does too many things.

kreetx 6y ago
I know the philosophy. What I'm trying to get at is that perhaps the thing that came before was a set of things that didn't quite work together, so now they made something that does. (And was just wondering if there was any specific thing the original parent wanted to replace.)
- fsflover 6y ago
  Some relevant old comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12335783 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12335783 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12652071 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12652071 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23065830 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23065830 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8672887 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8672887
  - kreetx 6y ago
    Did you just search for "unix philosophy" and found some links? Again, was just interested if you had any specific thing you could point to, but elsewhere in the comments I see now a few concrete issues.
crazy_hombre 6y ago
> AFAIK it's not easy to replace various parts of systemd, it's very monolithic and it does too many things. You can easily replace timesyncd with any NTP daemon. You can easily replace networkd with any other networking manager. You can easily replace timer units with cron. You can easily forward log messages to a syslog daemon. You can easily replace systemd-boot with grub or any other boot manager. It should be pretty obvious how baseless the monolithic arguments against systemd are.