4 ms·
Eric Raymond is not worth taking seriously except as a bad example. That aside, poking around I found this: http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/In
by GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
Eric Raymond is not worth taking seriously except as a bad example.
That aside, poking around I found this: http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/InterfacePortabilityAndStabilityChart/ http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/InterfacePo... which looks like reasonably well-defined interfaces?
Also not really seeing the problem with a binary protocol, works fine for tcp/ip.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- chubot 12y agoIf you don't think the content of that book is relevant to the systemd debate, then you haven't read it. I'd like to see you point to a better book about the Unix philosophy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
- GFK_of_xmaspast 12y agoI've been using unices for over 20 years now (first was ultrix, then truos, sunos, solaris, hpux, aix, linux, netbsd, freebsd, osx) and I don't believe there is such a thing as a unix philosophy.
- chubot 12y agoGive the Art of Unix Programming and honest read, and I'm sure you will come around. If you have ONLY used Unices, then I could understand why the philosophy is invisible. If, like me, you had used Windows exclusively for a decade, and then Unix for a decade, then the Unix philosophy would knock you up side the head. The systems could not be more different. (Despite the fact that they run mostly the same applications. http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Biculturalism.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Biculturalism.html is the review that got me to read it).
- GFK_of_xmaspast 12y agoOf course I haven't only used unices, how is that even possible in this world.
- digi_owl 12y agoThat is the interface between the systemd sub-daemons and third party code. There is no such promise about the interfaces between said sub-daemons and systemd-init.