altoid via Dng said on Thu, 12 Oct 2023 10:51:29 -0300

>On 12 Oct 2023 at 14:37, tito via Dng wrote:
>
>> ... a well designed common unified declarative init system service
>> format that takes into account the needs of the different init ...
>
>Think so?
>Then Linux is *absolutely and definitely* doomed.

Altoid, you make me think more than any five other people. You and I
are both principle based people and it's interesting how some of our
principles are the same and others clash. But anyway...

>
>Today and in the present situation Linux does not need *different*
>init systems with *different* needs.
>
>What Linux needs is just *one* bloody init system.
>Get it?

I disagree. Do we need just one window manager? One Desktop
Environment? Must we, as an operating system, eliminate either X or
Wayland? Perhaps we should all standardize on either Vim or Emacs?

>ONE, however imperfect it may be.

And judging from the vast adoption of systemd, that one init to rule
them all would be systemd. Then we can all migrate to BSD and argue
about which BSD should rule them all.

Anyway, if I wanted a "take it or leave it" OS, I'd go with Windows or
Mac. They're better at that "take it or leave it" type of thing.

>The Linux ecosystem cannot, at this point in time and in the present
>situation, by any means afford to squander more time and manpower.

The preceding sentence is both so true and so false that it deserves a
thread of its own.


>
>Do you know why the Republican loyalists lost the civil war
>(1936-1939) to the Nationalists in Spain?
>
>Leyend has it that it was because every move they made was first
>discussed over and over in endless assemblies.

Bikeshedding!

[snip]

>> ... and once it is standardized ...
>You know what *once* will end up being?
>
>This:
>
>"Once upon a time, there was a very interesting and widely used Unix
>type open source operating system with a great following ... "
>
>And that will be it.

Depends on the definition of "great following", and I think this also
belongs in the thread about manpower.

Altoid, you and I are both very similar in that we operate off
principles. It sounds to me like you have an anti-bikeshedding
principle because you've seen how much damage bikeshedding can do, and
not just with the generalissimo. I've also seen damage from
bikeshedding and have a principle against it. My only question is, at
what point does planning become bikeshedding?

I'm still trying to decide whether implementing dng's idea of "needed
variables (needs, provides, daemon, options to run in foreground,
options to run in background, options to log, options for pidfile, run
as user, run as group, you name it option, option I forgot,
runit_specific_options, s6_specific_options)" would necessitate
bikeshedding. Before I even start to consider my opinion on this I'm
going to read what everyone else says.

Thanks,

SteveT

Steve Litt

Autumn 2023 featured book: Rapid Learning for the 21st Century
http://www.troubleshooters.com/rl21