4 ms·

Both can be true though, it can create an integrated system where everything systemd-* works together, but where you can replace any systemd-* you don’t like wi

by thiht 2y ago

Both can be true though, it can create an integrated system where everything systemd-* works together, but where you can replace any systemd-* you don’t like with something else

constantcrying 2y ago
The point of an integrated system is that interactions between components enhance the system as a whole. This is obviously incompatible with an easy replacement of components. This is literally just basic systems engineering. I don't even know what you are arguing here. The more tightly integrated a system is the harder it is to replace individual components.
- growse 2y ago
  You can have a well-integrated system without having tight coupling between components. Interfaces are a thing, and a high level of integration just means having a good collection of interfaces between well-defined conceptual components with well-defined capabilities. The actual software that implements those components is entirely separate.
  - constantcrying 2y ago
    I don't know what you are arguing. Replacing a component in a tightly integrated system means that the component has to be compatible to that tightly integrated system, meaning lots of assumptions and replication of functionality. This means components have to tightly conform to the components they are replacing, which obviously decrease modularity as these components are harder to maintain for available system configurations. This isn't about whether someone can rewrite a part of systemd, but whether you can freely mix and match, which tight integration works against. Obviously
- thiht 2y ago
  > This is literally just basic systems engineering Well… yes it is. Public interfaces and contracts, anyone? Decoupling?
  - constantcrying 2y ago
    The more tightly integrated a system is, the more involved the contracts between the components become. I seriously didn't believe that a single person here would disagree with that. A component that depends on one simple interface is far easier to replace than one which depends on twenty complex ones. This seems like the most basic stuff.
- wmf 2y ago
  You can replace most systemd components but in that case you have fewer features and probably more code overall. If you run the whole systemd bundle you get more features.

by thiht 2y ago

Both can be true though, it can create an integrated system where everything systemd-* works together, but where you can replace any systemd-* you don’t like with something else

constantcrying 2y ago

The point of an integrated system is that interactions between components enhance the system as a whole. This is obviously incompatible with an easy replacement of components. This is literally just basic systems engineering. I don't even know what you are arguing here. The more tightly integrated a system is the harder it is to replace individual components.

growse 2y ago
You can have a well-integrated system without having tight coupling between components. Interfaces are a thing, and a high level of integration just means having a good collection of interfaces between well-defined conceptual components with well-defined capabilities. The actual software that implements those components is entirely separate.
- constantcrying 2y ago
  I don't know what you are arguing. Replacing a component in a tightly integrated system means that the component has to be compatible to that tightly integrated system, meaning lots of assumptions and replication of functionality. This means components have to tightly conform to the components they are replacing, which obviously decrease modularity as these components are harder to maintain for available system configurations. This isn't about whether someone can rewrite a part of systemd, but whether you can freely mix and match, which tight integration works against. Obviously
thiht 2y ago
> This is literally just basic systems engineering Well… yes it is. Public interfaces and contracts, anyone? Decoupling?
- constantcrying 2y ago
  The more tightly integrated a system is, the more involved the contracts between the components become. I seriously didn't believe that a single person here would disagree with that. A component that depends on one simple interface is far easier to replace than one which depends on twenty complex ones. This seems like the most basic stuff.
wmf 2y ago
You can replace most systemd components but in that case you have fewer features and probably more code overall. If you run the whole systemd bundle you get more features.