On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner marcelo.leitner@gmail.com wrote:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/+LennartPoetteringTheOneAndOnly/posts/J2TZrTvu7v...
But oddly, he didn't even mention that there would be a real simple solution - just add backwards-compatible improvements instead of actively wrecking the interfaces everyone else had depended on for decades.
"decades". That, by itself, already calls for an update, no?
No, do you dig a new foundation for your house every 10 years? Trade in your wife and kids?
But so did other systems, but they later found out that sometimes you have to break this backwards to infinity compatibility in order to get some big progress.
Only if the design was bad in the first place. And if the design was really bad, there wouldn't be any users to infuriate by breaking the interfaces they use. But the unix design that linux and linux distributions copied was pretty good, including the way init started things.
There is even a name for this break up, and they call it "disruptive events", "disruptive technology", etc. When we have such events, you either get up to speed, change your market field or.. get rusty...
Sorry man, that's how it works, everywhere. Although many will probably just "miss the old days".. yeah..
I doesn't have to be that way. But with free software when it breaks you get to keep all the pieces.
Like for firewalld and systemd, as they were already mentioned in here. It's hard _just because_ it's different. But wait, wasn't iptables different from ipchains? And is nftables going to be as the same as iptables? No, of course not. There are features in nftables that you can't put into iptables cleanly, so you need a new workflow on it.
Not sure iptables ever got it right in the first place. No one to copy from...