On Fri, 17 Jun 2016 12:56:16 -0400, Hendrik Boom wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 04:55:40PM +0200, Irrwahn wrote:
>>
>> It's this arrogant attitude of "alright, got it, easy enough,
>> now I'm gonna improve on it" without bothering to actually
>> get to the bottom of even the basic concepts behind it, that
>> brought us systemd and other crap. If you keep this up you are
>> condemned to reinvent SysV-init (or OpenRC, or whatever), poorly.

> I think Edward has already accepted that this is more or less a toy
> system that does some of the functions of a full-function init system.

He even advocated its actual use "[...] to power small computers
like the Raspberry Pi".

> The way he differs from the systemd cabal is that he
> keeps it simple, perhaps too simple. systemd does the opposite.

Not "perhaps", but evidently. Both approaches are missing the
target by about the same margin, just on opposing sides. No
real difference in the outcome here. I don't get what good it
does to pour even more water on the mills of the Systemd
proponents.

> Doesn't he even present his simple systems here in order to find out
> what kinds of things need to be added?

It has been established for decades what is needed to tackle
the task. I fail to understand why people insist on re-inventing
hexagonal wheels, and brag about it. What next, "Mini kernel
written in PHP"? Reverse engineering by trial and error is one
of the worst design methods ever invented, and is only to be used
as a last resort if no other option is available. While it can
lead to remarkable results (Linux itself and WINE come to mind),
it takes much more than just enthusiasm to make it a success.
(Be that an actual product, or deeper insight, or what else.)
Ignorance of well-established facts evidentially has an adverse
effect.

If I were to post here the thousands of crappy experimental code
snippets buried somewhere on my disk, I'd probably get burned at
the stake. And rightfully so, I suppose.

> Ad hominem attecks considered impolite.

It was his own choice, not mine, to display such an attitude,
continually embarrassing himself publicly in the process. I was
simply stating obvious facts and my conclusions derived. (Which
could well be wrong, in which case it should be easy to disprove
them.) It's on the record. Actually, he undermined his own
reputation in a much more wicked way than I ever could've come
up with, even if I was the scoundrel I apparently come across as.

Regards
Urban