3 ms·

I hate with a passion having to work on just about any platform besides Debian/Linux. Call it what you will, I'm just very comfortable and satisfied with how De

I hate with a passion having to work on just about any platform besides Debian/Linux. Call it what you will, I'm just very comfortable and satisfied with how Debian/Linux works. That being said, to be anti-portability is just plain unprofessional. Just having a second non-gcc compiler to test against for, say C++, is a blessing in that it's bound to make you rethink how you code and to catch problems well before they happen. The more platforms you can test against, the better your code will be. And much as I love Linux, I would hate to see it stagnate and become the only OSS option. I think Poettering has had an attitude problem for quite some time, and unfortunately he doesn't seem to be getting any better.

bkor 13y ago
Do you really think BSD would replace their init system with something not BSD licensed? Seems like a pointless exercise to slow down progress just for theoretical usecase.
- npsimons 13y ago
  Which is part of my point; although BSD is not my personal license of choice, I really think it would be a bad idea to have Linux distros (or apps higher in the stack) be incompatible with the BSDs, eg by requiring something Linux specific (eg, systemd). I'm not a big fan of systemd; I really think is too wide in scope, and making the logs binary doesn't make sense to me. It might be more acceptable to me if they dual licensed it (GPLv3 and BSD) so that it could be ported to and used in the BSDs (among other systems); that would also give the bonus of improving the code (which making it portable almost always does). Alas, none of these concerns are likely to be addressed satisfactorily. PS - So-called "theoretical" use cases have probably been the number one source of bugs (especially security holes) in the history of software. "Oh, don't worry about checking array bounds, nobody would be stupid enough to write too much data!"

bkor 13y ago

Do you really think BSD would replace their init system with something not BSD licensed? Seems like a pointless exercise to slow down progress just for theoretical usecase.

npsimons 13y ago
Which is part of my point; although BSD is not my personal license of choice, I really think it would be a bad idea to have Linux distros (or apps higher in the stack) be incompatible with the BSDs, eg by requiring something Linux specific (eg, systemd). I'm not a big fan of systemd; I really think is too wide in scope, and making the logs binary doesn't make sense to me. It might be more acceptable to me if they dual licensed it (GPLv3 and BSD) so that it could be ported to and used in the BSDs (among other systems); that would also give the bonus of improving the code (which making it portable almost always does). Alas, none of these concerns are likely to be addressed satisfactorily. PS - So-called "theoretical" use cases have probably been the number one source of bugs (especially security holes) in the history of software. "Oh, don't worry about checking array bounds, nobody would be stupid enough to write too much data!"