[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Elisp addiction not as bad in light of Linux forkoholism
From: |
Dan Espen |
Subject: |
Re: Elisp addiction not as bad in light of Linux forkoholism |
Date: |
Mon, 01 Dec 2014 12:56:24 -0500 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) |
"Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> writes:
> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes:
>
>> "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> writes:
>>
>>> I've not looked at systemd too closely, but AFAICS, the problem is not
>>> child-diseases, but more that it's not enough unixy.
>>
>> It's like an echo. I keep reading this same opinion.
>>
>> 1. I don't know much about it
>> 2. It's bad.
>>
>> Spend a little time appreciating the simplicity of systemd
>> and then reach your conclusion. In my opinion, the design is
>> good and it takes a whole bunch of disorganized shell scripts
>> and turns them into data. I nice simple, readable data structure.
>
> Notice that you're the first one I read expressing this judgement about
> systemd. It's certainly encouraging to have a closer look at it.
Seems to me we have a culture that encourages disparaging everything.
I do notice that common pattern of the people bad-talking systemd
all starting out with "I don't know much about it".
That encouraged me to take a look.
I had no reason to look before then because I had no problems working
with it. I noticed some commands changed, but they worked perfectly.
One of the primary attributes of systemd is that it took a whole bunch
of daemon admin scripts, found the commonalities, then replaced
them with data files.
This attitude that I know better than the experts is dumb.
At least learn something before you open your mouth.
(Not you, the generic you.)
--
Dan Espen
Re: Elisp addiction not as bad in light of Linux forkoholism, Raffaele Ricciardi, 2014/12/02
Re: Elisp addiction not as bad in light of Linux forkoholism, Emanuel Berg, 2014/12/11