3 ms·

> And, of course, the latter behavior as a box users are expected to live in is poisonous, because everyone is being conditioned to be passive and uniform. No,

by oblio 2y ago

> And, of course, the latter behavior as a box users are expected to live in is poisonous, because everyone is being conditioned to be passive and uniform. No, it's not, this assumes that the other camp are all idiots. Mainstream distros should be rock solid and boring. Linux never got anywhere with the standard distros because they're all so different. Tinkering is a different mindset (and has a different place) than professional engineering work. Systemd is basically engineering, SysV & co. were basically old school tinkering/hacking. In the same vein, don't be creative with bolt sizes. Be creative with what those bolts allow you to achieve. Be creative at a higher level. That should be the nature of humanity.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> Linux never got anywhere with the standard distros because they're all so different. This is eliding the difference in what you want to be standardized. Take system logging for example. You definitely want some standard interface to do it so all the different daemons and things can implement it once regardless of which system logger the distribution is using. But once it passes that data to the other program, it's under a different dominion of control which should operate as a black box with respect to the program generating the data and the rest of the system. Because that's how you prevent ossification -- which is engineering. You want to make it so the other component can be improved or substituted. One system logger is designed to store the logs on a central server instead of the local machine, another supports modules so other people can easily write log-parsing scripts. And when you come up with a new idea for a third, you don't have to be on the systemd team to publish an independent implementation that other people can use as a drop-in replacement, instead of (not in addition to) the default one, without requiring it to be separately integrated with a dozen moving targets in the systemd repository. What you're trying to do is to allow this: > In the same vein, don't be creative with bolt sizes. Be creative with what those bolts allow you to achieve. Be creative at a higher level. You want to standardize the bolt sizes, i.e. the interfaces between components. What you explicitly don't want is to replace bolts with having everything epoxied together. But that's what happens when you e.g. integrate the logging system with the service manager, which is the sort of thing people are complaining about.
- oblio 2y ago
  We've had Unix for what, close to 55 years now? Nobody standardized and got widespread adoption for those standards, which BTW, especially when you look at corporate interests regarding the web, are easily sabotaged. So I'd rather have the epoxy open source standard than no standard.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    And now we're back to this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42039273 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42039273 There are things that systemd does better than SysV and other things it does worse and you can want it to stop doing the things that are worse while still doing the things that are better.

by oblio 2y ago

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

> Linux never got anywhere with the standard distros because they're all so different. This is eliding the difference in what you want to be standardized. Take system logging for example. You definitely want some standard interface to do it so all the different daemons and things can implement it once regardless of which system logger the distribution is using. But once it passes that data to the other program, it's under a different dominion of control which should operate as a black box with respect to the program generating the data and the rest of the system. Because that's how you prevent ossification -- which is engineering. You want to make it so the other component can be improved or substituted. One system logger is designed to store the logs on a central server instead of the local machine, another supports modules so other people can easily write log-parsing scripts. And when you come up with a new idea for a third, you don't have to be on the systemd team to publish an independent implementation that other people can use as a drop-in replacement, instead of (not in addition to) the default one, without requiring it to be separately integrated with a dozen moving targets in the systemd repository. What you're trying to do is to allow this: > In the same vein, don't be creative with bolt sizes. Be creative with what those bolts allow you to achieve. Be creative at a higher level. You want to standardize the bolt sizes, i.e. the interfaces between components. What you explicitly don't want is to replace bolts with having everything epoxied together. But that's what happens when you e.g. integrate the logging system with the service manager, which is the sort of thing people are complaining about.

oblio 2y ago
We've had Unix for what, close to 55 years now? Nobody standardized and got widespread adoption for those standards, which BTW, especially when you look at corporate interests regarding the web, are easily sabotaged. So I'd rather have the epoxy open source standard than no standard.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  And now we're back to this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42039273 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42039273 There are things that systemd does better than SysV and other things it does worse and you can want it to stop doing the things that are worse while still doing the things that are better.