On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 12:58:46 -0500 Barry Schwartz <chemoelect...@chemoelectric.org> wrote:
> > ‘Diversity’ here is deviation from established Unix/POSIX philosophy > in system design. Years of effort to simplify programming are being > thrown away on grounds that resemble common arguments in favor of the > ‘tight integration’ that is Microsoft Windows. I mean, seriously, many > of the pro-systemd arguments are like those I have heard for using > Windows: that applications ‘just work’, because they were written for > a dominant system. > Good design is highly flexible and configurable with little assumption made on the nature or needs of the user. Let's consider a simple program to display digital images. A good program design will not only contain built-in routines to accommodate the standard image formats but will also provide non-specific raster buffers to allow a user to view unconventional or even non-existent formats. A good program design will also make no assumptions about the nature of the image data but rather allow the user to create any needed specifications. A professional program thus allows both standard conventions but keeps the overall capability unrestricted and open ended. As best as I can understand (I am not an expert in systems programming) under Torvalds the Linux OS conforms to such professional design goals. > > What I really fear, though, is what if one day the kernel team is a > different entity, more like other entities in the Linux world? > Someone has to write an apocalyptic novel about Linus Torvalds being assassinated and his role taken over by the evil figures from ???.
