4 ms·
Seriously. His reasoning is "it's not monolithic, this one package has 70 binaries that do different things, therefore it is modular." Clearly, his understand
by nilved 12y ago
Seriously. His reasoning is "it's not monolithic, this one package has 70 binaries that do different things, therefore it is modular." Clearly, his understanding of the word "monolithic" is as poor as his understanding of UNIX.
- evol262 12y agoUNIX never meant anything. z/OS is UNIX. Even the Single UNIX Spec never clarified anything other than "UNIX includes these things". People who rail about how systemd "isn't UNIX" never had to maintain a heterogenous environment of IRIX, Tru64, HP-UX, AIX, and Solaris. They're all UNIX. OSX is also UNIX. Guess how similar they are and how many design philosophies they share. Coreutils has a lot of binaries that do different things. Is is monolithic? The GNU ecosystem and autotools barely function without other GNU tools which aren't part of the same project. Are those monolithic? Monolithic is a canard.
- jude- 12y agoThe difference between coreutils' and systemd's components is that changing the implementation of one coreutils program (let's say "ls") will not require you to modify others (like "cat"). Not only are they separate modules, but also they are loosely-coupled by design. Contrast this with systemd's modules, which are much more tightly coupled.