4 ms·

> I believe this issue of Turing complete config language vs simpler declarative configuration is one of the basic thing for which there exist no good universal

> I believe this issue of Turing complete config language vs simpler declarative configuration is one of the basic thing for which there exist no good universal solution. Indeed there isn't. And people that want simpler declarative configuration files can have them as far as I'm concerned. My ire is the mentality common of Red Hat employees that I am wrong for wanting traditional Unix-style flexible configuration and their dependency politics to try to get others to switch over. If they just designed their software how they want to and otherwise let it be, such as KDE and XFCE are doing, then they would not be drawing the same criticism, but they have a tendency of coming with a dismissive attitude to everyone who wants it different than they do and insist their way is the future and when people point out that their way does not offer functionality they need either for convenience, or their livelihood they dismiss it. > For now, if so many users have it easier thanks to systemd, which seems to indeed be the case, then it's still something. If various Red Hat projects didn't find a way to create dependencies on systemd to encourage it's adoption and systemd was simply there for the people that wanted it but left those that didn't alone, then it wouldn't be so controversial. What I quoted was “Who wouldn't want [...]”; that's the Red Hat mentality, that everyone who has subjective ideals than they either does not exist, or is wrong.

awrmc 5y ago
>If they just designed their software how they want to and otherwise let it be In my experience, that is what they're doing. Their software just happens to be adopted by more users because in a lot of cases it is better and does represent the future. You have that advantage when you support a lot of commercial users over a long period of time. Red Hat also has a policy of contributing a lot to upstream so that also adds to why they have success with other projects. >If various Red Hat projects didn't find a way to create dependencies on systemd to encourage it's adoption I think this is an exaggeration. I haven't seen any projects that have anything more than a trivial dependency on systemd to enable some optional functionality.

awrmc 5y ago

>If they just designed their software how they want to and otherwise let it be In my experience, that is what they're doing. Their software just happens to be adopted by more users because in a lot of cases it is better and does represent the future. You have that advantage when you support a lot of commercial users over a long period of time. Red Hat also has a policy of contributing a lot to upstream so that also adds to why they have success with other projects. >If various Red Hat projects didn't find a way to create dependencies on systemd to encourage it's adoption I think this is an exaggeration. I haven't seen any projects that have anything more than a trivial dependency on systemd to enable some optional functionality.