3 ms·

We don’t need more options. We need fewer. We’re moving past the days where we take an operating system off the shelf and plug things into it until it can serv

We don’t need more options. We need fewer. We’re moving past the days where we take an operating system off the shelf and plug things into it until it can serve our application and into the days of purpose built OSes that push software complexity into the realm of software engineers. These two statements contradict each other. On top of that, it isn't even anything exciting, per se. Special-purpose and tailored OS have been the norm for plenty of fields, though I suppose not web application deployment. And of course, the obligatory false dichotomy about init systems: Just because something like systemV has worked very well for 32 years doesn’t mean it should not be torn apart and re-invented. "Full reliance on the init suite" should rise some alarms about fault tolerance, honestly. But I don't know.

stresler 11y ago
I don't really think so. Pushing complexity into the software layer means you need fewer options at the operating system layer. I'm specifically addressing the OS. As far as taking things off the shelf, I'm referring to a 'server edition' vs a 'desktop edition' just being a difference of installed packages. There isn't a desktop version of Core for a good reason. These are two different workloads. And totally agreed about systemd being a bit bleeding edge. It's a new thing, and there are definitely speedbumps to be had. Thanks for commenting. I'm loving the dialogue that is happening here.
forgottenpass 11y ago
These two statements contradict each other. Well, if you read carefully the "we" is operations, and they're just jiggering things around enough to throw the complexities over the wall to development. I'm with you that this (at least for the Core OS case) isn't terribly exciting conceptually. The exciting part is someone is doing the heavy lifting to introduce this level of flexibility into Linux. It brings the highly tailored OS approach to users that haven't had a business case to do all that work in house, and builds the ecosystem around the idea in a way that doesn't happen with one-off implementations.
- Terretta 11y ago
  Don't have to read too carefully. It's stated explicitly in his closing remark.

stresler 11y ago

I don't really think so. Pushing complexity into the software layer means you need fewer options at the operating system layer. I'm specifically addressing the OS. As far as taking things off the shelf, I'm referring to a 'server edition' vs a 'desktop edition' just being a difference of installed packages. There isn't a desktop version of Core for a good reason. These are two different workloads. And totally agreed about systemd being a bit bleeding edge. It's a new thing, and there are definitely speedbumps to be had. Thanks for commenting. I'm loving the dialogue that is happening here.

forgottenpass 11y ago

These two statements contradict each other. Well, if you read carefully the "we" is operations, and they're just jiggering things around enough to throw the complexities over the wall to development. I'm with you that this (at least for the Core OS case) isn't terribly exciting conceptually. The exciting part is someone is doing the heavy lifting to introduce this level of flexibility into Linux. It brings the highly tailored OS approach to users that haven't had a business case to do all that work in house, and builds the ecosystem around the idea in a way that doesn't happen with one-off implementations.

Terretta 11y ago
Don't have to read too carefully. It's stated explicitly in his closing remark.