On Mon, 26 Jun 2017 21:30:39 -0700
Bruce Perens <bruce@???> wrote:


>
> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 1:09 PM, Hendrik Boom <hendrik@???>
> wrote:

> > The point is that that proposed libsystemd0 would *not* be an init
> > system, and it would still enable software that was written to use
> > systemd to run flawlessly.
> >
> > But I have to agree that writing such a thing is infeasible because
> > the so-called systemd cabal can change the specs faster than anyone
> > can do the reverse engineering. And it will take reverse
> > engineering, because the specs aren't sufficient.
> >
> > I use the term "strategic incompetence" for the organisations that
> > produce such system(d)s.

> I really dare any "cabal" to change both the specs and the *clients
> *in a way I can't keep up with. There are enough clients.
>
> No real programmer would worry about something like this.
>
> This is getting silly.

So true, but I'm a fake programmer, having spent almost two decades
making my living writing office automation code in C, Perl, Turbo
Pascal, Clarion, Rbase, and probably 10 other languages. As a fake
programmer I just can't keep up with the moving target obfuscation of
the "cabal", who, did I mention, consists of several people paid good
salaries just to keep the obfuscation moving.

I know if I were a real programmer I'd be able to keep up with 10
people who have been dealing with their code base for 6 years and are
paid just to move their obfuscation, and still have plenty of time for
my life and my day job. But alas, I'm just a fake programmer.

SteveT

Steve Litt
June 2017 featured book: The Key to Everyday Excellence
http://www.troubleshooters.com/key