On Tue 31 March 2015 09:11:54 Hendrik Boom wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 11:16:02AM +0200, Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> > [1] [systemd-devel] I wonder… why systemd provokes this amount of polarity
> > and resistance:
> >
> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-September/thread.
> > html
> The discussion here contains a quotation about the Unix philosophy (in
> an attempt to explain how systemd follows it). I find it summmarises
> well the way Devuan believes a Linux system should be organised:
>
>
> 1. Write simple parts connected by clean interfaces.
> 2. Clarity is better than cleverness.
> 3. Design programs to be connected to other programs.
> 4. Separate policy from mechanism; separate interfaces from engines.
> 5. Design for simplicity; add complexity only where you must.
> 6. Write a big program only when it is clear by demonstration that
> nothing else will do.
> 7. Rule of Transparency: Design for visibility to make inspection and
> debugging easier.
> 8. Robustness is the child of transparency and simplicity.
> 9. Fold knowledge into data so program logic can be stupid and robust.
> 10. In interface design, always do the least surprising thing.
> 11. When a program has nothing surprising to say, it should say
> nothing.
> 12. When you must fail, fail noisily and as soon as possible.
> 13. Programmer time is expensive; conserve it in preference to machine
> time.
> 14. Avoid hand-hacking; write programs to write programs when you can.
> 15. Prototype before polishing. Get it working before you optimize it.
> 16. Distrust all claims for “one true way”.
> 17. Design for the future, because it will be here sooner than you
> think.
>
> (see
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-September/023294.ht
> ml for the actual post)
>
> -- hendrik


Jóhann B. Guðmundsson in http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-September/023294.html asks:
> Now after you have read these more of an guidelines than actual
> philosophy I would like to hear from you where you think systemd has and
> is falling short of them during it's development phase and lifetime so I
> can better understand why people seem to be claiming it's not following
> these guidelines?

I think it's more easy to list where systemd (the project) is _not_ failing:
#3


and just maybe also on #12 (unlikely), #14, #15 - I didn't feel like checking
just to complete the already overwhelming list of failures. I wonder how
anybody could fail to see how systemd massively violates particularly #6 but
also #1 #2 #5 and just recently #10 (8.8.8.8 issue).

In the end the tone and obvious hybris and arrogance in that mail make it
seem unlikely that answering to this guy would result in anything good. I mean
somebody claiming that "7 years of function hijacking are hard to beat by any
competitor that's just a init system" (paraphrased) is clearly explaining the
issue itself as well as exposing his own complete lack to grok the issue.
There's a lot more to say about other fallacies in this mail, but I think
everybody willing to see will not need me to point all that out.

/j