1/30/2024 0 Comments PasteCat instalNext you'll be telling me that water is wet, or that nobody ever actually drinks the kool-aid because that's a specific brand-name that's only available in certain countries(*)įollowed, no doubt, by the conclusion that nobody wants to (or should ever want to) combine water + flavouring agent because that's too messy and inconvenient and far too difficult so it's easier to just buy a can of some fizzy drink. Wow, thanks for that startling revelation. > It also certainly isn't "Unix" as that is fairly dead > "Linux" is just a kernel, so stuff in user-space certainly isn't "Linux". The thing that annoys me most about systemd is that I didn't write it first! The core idea behind systemd of unifying system service management into a single infrastructure is something that Unix has badly needed for years. There certainly may be technical details about systemd that can be honestly debated, and there may be social/community issues that not everyone feels comfortable with (but then ambitious people often come across as intimidating), but to say that systemd is bad because it is not the "Unix way" is to simply have your head in the sand. It was nowhere near as ambitious as systemd but as far as it went, it was designed along very similar lines. Back when I was being a sysadmin I would have loved something that would give me real control over all the various deamons: status, control, auto-restart, dependency etc. It may not be a perfect picture, but it is a whole lot better than no real picture at all. Systemd provides us with a clear big picture for one fairly important part of the sysadmin story: daemon process control. I spent a good many years as a Unix sysadmin at a University and I got to see a lot of the rough edges and paper over some of them. It was always lots of bits that could mostly be stuck together to mostly work. One thing Unix never gave us was a clear big picture. "do one thing and do it well" is good for prototypes, not for final products. To do really complete work, you need real purpose-built tools. Lots of separate tools only do 90% of the work. Suddenly the whole illusion came shattering down. It used a special 'dcomm' (or something like that) which knew about "dictionary ordering" (Which ignores case - sometimes). Then I looked at the actual "spell" program on my university's Unix installation. It uses 'tr' to split into words, then "sort" and "uniq" to get a word list, then "comm" to find the differences. I read some article that explained how a "spell" program can be written to report the spelling errors in a file. I remember being severly disillusioned by this in my early days. You can sort-of stick them together with pipes and shell scripts, but it is rather messy and always error prone. sort, join, cut, paste, cat, grep, comm etc make a nice set of tools for simple text-database work, but they all have slightly different ways of identifying and selecting fields and sort orders etc. One of the big weaknesses of the "do one job and do it well" approach is that those individual tools didn't really combine very well. Trying to name the whole after any one person is a mistake. He certainly instigated systemd and a few other bits, but the whole userspace that Fedora or openSUSE enjoy today is much more than any one person's innovation. I think calling it "Lennartix" gives way too much credit (or otherwise) to Lennart. But the needs we have today are very different.Īnd it clearly isn't "GNU/Linux" as that was largely an attempt to re-implement UNIX is free software, and add more options. It met needs in the 60s and 70s and even to some extent the 80s quite well. It also certainly isn't "Unix" as that is fairly dead. "Linux" is just a kernel, so stuff in user-space certainly isn't "Linux".
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |