4 ms·

not really he's implyming gnome developers are bad, because they shut off any kind of dialog. it's kind of the same reason why gentoo folks developed eudev. wh

not really he's implyming gnome developers are bad, because they shut off any kind of dialog. it's kind of the same reason why gentoo folks developed eudev. who cares about bsd? you can't even use different distros anymore, because these folks are destroying the unix philosophy. wanna run gnome? sure, replace everything with systemd. wanna disable geolocation in gnome? no problem just wait for the next release http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTYwNTM http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTYwNTM EDIT: Firstly this post was more about "the GNOME attitude" than systemd. However, I've already read the biggest myth post, so please stop responding with that post. So far all our software engineering efforts have lead to the conclusion that whenever a system leads to too much complexity it because cumbersome to use extend, and prone to errors. i would argue that you can build a single piece of software that is modular without splitting it into multiple parts, but systemd isn't that. In fact, a lot more companies are moving away from big monolithic blocks. No one ever said that single components should be built in a non-connected way. in fact, composability is a big part of good components. where ever did you get the idea that its the opposite? why do you think imlib2 got so successful? but hey, care to explain to me what the advantage of merging udev with systemd was?

Morgawr 13y ago
Not saying I disagree with you, but you mention the "unix philosophy". These last few years I've seen a lot of people repeat that sentence over and over again, but I ask you, what is the "unix philosophy"? Treating everything as a file? Do one thing and do it well? Develop beautiful software, not bloated and simple? Every single person has a different idea of what this mythical "unix philosophy" actually is. Certainly, all these practices apply well on servers but the world is moving forward and we have much much more complex devices that aren't just mainframes with terminals anymore. We are not dealing with software anymore, we are dealing with systems. And we want performance and stability. Developing single components in a totally individual and non-connected way, oblivious of their environment does not always work anymore. Sometimes you need to build an environment, not just a single component. You need to have software that interfaces and integrates properly. Does the Unix philosophy go against that? I don't know. The point is that you should always question things, not just repeat "but the Unix philosophy says...", because systems evolve. Furthermore, I'll point towards this page http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html It might be relevant, it might be not, but it's a good read nonetheless.
- zimbatm 13y ago
  It's also an excuse to avoid good design. It requires more effort to design a system that doesn't have a strong coupling between the components and a clear set of abstractions. Does it mean that systemd is bloated ? I don't know, I would have to study the problem space closer.
- Pacabel 13y ago
  Even if we can't define the "UNIX philosophy" exactly, I think we can still look at a given software system and see whether or not it generally approaches that set of ideals as a whole. When compared to UNIX-oriented software of the past several decades, I think it's clear that modern GNOME is very different. Systemd is also very different. Being so different in so many core ways means that they inherently don't adhere to the practices and ideals we can consider to be typical of software adopting the "UNIX philosophy".
bkor 13y ago
I think you skipped over the bit where I explained things. E.g. you're saying "rely on systemd", while I already mentioned we rely on dbus interfaces. However, there is only sort of 1 implementation (other is a fork), so nothing for *BSD. Now eudev as explained during FOSDEM of 2013 was only started because they didn't understand plus they wanted to understand C. There hasn't been any progress. Further, the packaging of udev in Gentoo caused some bad assumption. Merging of udev and systemd had loads of advantages, but if you bring up eudev again, I'm guessing you're missing out on 12 months of explanations (I attended the eudev presentation at IIRC FOSDEM 2013). Greg (the kernel dev) mentioned during FOSDEM 2014 that he still follows eudev development and there is not much going on. Sometimes bugfixes for bugs introduced by eudev. Regarding most of your other replies: Please explain properly what you mean. "Unix Philosophy" could mean anything for you. I'm more than willing to discuss, but that's impossible if I don't understand you.
- rjzzleep 13y ago
  > Now eudev as explained during FOSDEM of 2013 was only started because they didn't understand plus they wanted to understand C. There hasn't been any progress. Further, the packaging of udev in Gentoo caused some bad assumption. shrug, maybe, links? https://lwn.net/Articles/529314/ https://lwn.net/Articles/529314/ > Merging of udev and systemd had loads of advantages, does it? http://www.mail-archive.com/systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org/msg05287.html http://www.mail-archive.com/systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.... > but if you bring up eudev again, I'm guessing you're missing out on 12 months of explanations (I attended the eudev presentation at IIRC FOSDEM 2013). Greg (the kernel dev) mentioned during FOSDEM 2014 that he still follows eudev development and there is not much going on. Sometimes bugfixes for bugs introduced by eudev. not surprised, i wouldn't be surprised if the project was dead already. i said the reason it was forked not the reason they maintain it or did i? > Regarding most of your other replies: Please explain properly what you mean. "Unix Philosophy" could mean anything for you. I'm more than willing to discuss, but that's impossible if I don't understand you. sorry, isn't that written in my post? also, sorry, since everyone seems to be sensible to the words unix philosophy even though we're still chaining, and composing those very utilities to this date. forget that word. make it good design. modular, composable, well abstracted(but not too abstracted software). EDIT: also, sorry, i didn't mean to start a rant page on systemd here. i use it on my archlinux, and i'm quite happy there. but I stopped using gnome a long time ago. not only that, i also stopped using gnome components, even though for a long time i was using gnome-session with awesome after going down the tiling wm route.
riquito 13y ago
> wanna disable geolocation in gnome? no problem just wait for the next release http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTYwNTM http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTYwNTM This is FUD, and the worst is that you don't even know it. Geolocation is a NEW feature in GNOME 3.12, so you don't have to wait a release to disable Geolocation, because you don't have it yet. The article point to a commit during the development process.
- rjzzleep 13y ago
  point taken, sorry. mimicing mac osx's behavior is not really the same as the implications of my post

Morgawr 13y ago

Not saying I disagree with you, but you mention the "unix philosophy". These last few years I've seen a lot of people repeat that sentence over and over again, but I ask you, what is the "unix philosophy"? Treating everything as a file? Do one thing and do it well? Develop beautiful software, not bloated and simple? Every single person has a different idea of what this mythical "unix philosophy" actually is. Certainly, all these practices apply well on servers but the world is moving forward and we have much much more complex devices that aren't just mainframes with terminals anymore. We are not dealing with software anymore, we are dealing with systems. And we want performance and stability. Developing single components in a totally individual and non-connected way, oblivious of their environment does not always work anymore. Sometimes you need to build an environment, not just a single component. You need to have software that interfaces and integrates properly. Does the Unix philosophy go against that? I don't know. The point is that you should always question things, not just repeat "but the Unix philosophy says...", because systems evolve. Furthermore, I'll point towards this page http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html It might be relevant, it might be not, but it's a good read nonetheless.

zimbatm 13y ago
It's also an excuse to avoid good design. It requires more effort to design a system that doesn't have a strong coupling between the components and a clear set of abstractions. Does it mean that systemd is bloated ? I don't know, I would have to study the problem space closer.
Pacabel 13y ago
Even if we can't define the "UNIX philosophy" exactly, I think we can still look at a given software system and see whether or not it generally approaches that set of ideals as a whole. When compared to UNIX-oriented software of the past several decades, I think it's clear that modern GNOME is very different. Systemd is also very different. Being so different in so many core ways means that they inherently don't adhere to the practices and ideals we can consider to be typical of software adopting the "UNIX philosophy".

bkor 13y ago

I think you skipped over the bit where I explained things. E.g. you're saying "rely on systemd", while I already mentioned we rely on dbus interfaces. However, there is only sort of 1 implementation (other is a fork), so nothing for *BSD. Now eudev as explained during FOSDEM of 2013 was only started because they didn't understand plus they wanted to understand C. There hasn't been any progress. Further, the packaging of udev in Gentoo caused some bad assumption. Merging of udev and systemd had loads of advantages, but if you bring up eudev again, I'm guessing you're missing out on 12 months of explanations (I attended the eudev presentation at IIRC FOSDEM 2013). Greg (the kernel dev) mentioned during FOSDEM 2014 that he still follows eudev development and there is not much going on. Sometimes bugfixes for bugs introduced by eudev. Regarding most of your other replies: Please explain properly what you mean. "Unix Philosophy" could mean anything for you. I'm more than willing to discuss, but that's impossible if I don't understand you.

rjzzleep 13y ago
> Now eudev as explained during FOSDEM of 2013 was only started because they didn't understand plus they wanted to understand C. There hasn't been any progress. Further, the packaging of udev in Gentoo caused some bad assumption. shrug, maybe, links? https://lwn.net/Articles/529314/ https://lwn.net/Articles/529314/ > Merging of udev and systemd had loads of advantages, does it? http://www.mail-archive.com/systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org/msg05287.html http://www.mail-archive.com/systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.... > but if you bring up eudev again, I'm guessing you're missing out on 12 months of explanations (I attended the eudev presentation at IIRC FOSDEM 2013). Greg (the kernel dev) mentioned during FOSDEM 2014 that he still follows eudev development and there is not much going on. Sometimes bugfixes for bugs introduced by eudev. not surprised, i wouldn't be surprised if the project was dead already. i said the reason it was forked not the reason they maintain it or did i? > Regarding most of your other replies: Please explain properly what you mean. "Unix Philosophy" could mean anything for you. I'm more than willing to discuss, but that's impossible if I don't understand you. sorry, isn't that written in my post? also, sorry, since everyone seems to be sensible to the words unix philosophy even though we're still chaining, and composing those very utilities to this date. forget that word. make it good design. modular, composable, well abstracted(but not too abstracted software). EDIT: also, sorry, i didn't mean to start a rant page on systemd here. i use it on my archlinux, and i'm quite happy there. but I stopped using gnome a long time ago. not only that, i also stopped using gnome components, even though for a long time i was using gnome-session with awesome after going down the tiling wm route.

riquito 13y ago

> wanna disable geolocation in gnome? no problem just wait for the next release http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTYwNTM http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTYwNTM This is FUD, and the worst is that you don't even know it. Geolocation is a NEW feature in GNOME 3.12, so you don't have to wait a release to disable Geolocation, because you don't have it yet. The article point to a commit during the development process.

rjzzleep 13y ago
point taken, sorry. mimicing mac osx's behavior is not really the same as the implications of my post