On Sat, 2015-02-28 at 18:11 -0600, Nate Bargmann wrote:

>
> With all respect, T.J., those are merely programming languages--shell, C
> and C++ are also "hard to extract"--but none are trying to dictate
> policy.

I would not consider C in that group, as the system actually requires
the C library for the OS to function on the most basic level, not to
mention that the kernel, Perl and Python are actually written in C.

My point is that Perl and Python as system software are forced on you in
a Linux distribution as a requirement in much the same way that systemd
is. You can't get rid of them, without pulling a DIY. Linux as a
platform does not require them to function.

What makes it relevant to the conversation is that it is all about
attitude. They are enthusiastically endorsed by communities that refuse
to acknowledge that either can be as much of a hindrance as a help in
many cases. For example, Python as a programming language is designed
specifically to dictate how you do things, i.e. Zen of Python: "There
should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it."

Sometimes Linux can be its own worst enemy.


> Other tools we're familiar with also dictate policy at some level such
> as dpkg and apt, however, the authors of those tools don't start
> throwing around the term "haters" whenever someone sets out to compile
> from source outside of their policy. Do you see the difference?

There is some truth to that, but you can revisit that virtually anywhere
there are fanboys/fangirls. The fact that few authors like LP can use
the term "haters" to divert attention from the real issues, and then get
a free pass just shows how easily the issue has polarized others and how
easily the "sheeple" are manipulated into going along.

t.j.