3 ms·
I don't want my hammer to have a razorblade embedded in the handle so if I grab it "wrong" my hand gets sliced up. Look analogies work both ways!
by wredcoll 1y ago
I don't want my hammer to have a razorblade embedded in the handle so if I grab it "wrong" my hand gets sliced up.
Look analogies work both ways!
- josefx 1y agoPoettering would assert that the razorblade is a part of their vision and systemd only supports modern, razorblade resistant hands anyways.
- Brian_K_White 1y agoThere is no analogy that worked both ways here. Some fitting counter-analogy might exist, but this isn't it, because there are no razor blade analogs in the handle analog of init. I used hammer as the example because init is actually like a hammer. It is a dead simple impliment with limited scope and knowable, known, and absolutely predictable behaviors and properties. It doesn't actually do much of anything, which makes it infinitely flexible. By not having any will of it's own, it allows you to do more than a more complex, automatic, and integrated tool. It can't suddenly razor blade you because it doesn't have razor blades or any other special features in the first place. YOU are the complex integrator. And if you are not, I have no sympathy for you or whatever difficulty you have with responsibility. You can still have complex automation and management, built on top of simpler lower level agnostic layers and tools. There was never any requirement to remove that flexibility and elegant future-proof design in order to have all the things systemd promises (and really, merely promises, it does not actually deliver any better than anything else). Systemd is also a grand scope example of tight coupling. It's so bizarre how these supposed genius coders can commit such a huge example of something they all know to avoid like the plague in just a slightly different context.