[CentOS] Systemd Adding Its Own Console To Linux Systems

Wed Oct 8 19:10:13 UTC 2014
Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner at gmail.com>

On 08-10-2014 15:25, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
> <marcelo.leitner at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>> https://plus.google.com/u/0/+LennartPoetteringTheOneAndOnly/posts/J2TZrTvu7vd
>>>
>>>
>>> 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?

Really? Are you really comparing this to technology stuff?

Anyway, hands down if you still use one of the very first mobile phones 
and not a smartphone, or if your laptop is 10, 20 years old.

>> 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.

That's very subjective. There were those who loved LPRng and those who 
couldn't bare with it, which saw salvation on CUPS (like me).

The only thing in common between both was the lpr/q commands and that 
they "manage printing", because everything else was different. Today 
LPRng is long gone..

It's not saying that it is "bad", but that we can do more, and for that 
we can't have all that backward compatibility altogether. It's already 
very hard to QA just the new bits, imagine with everything combined. 
IMHO better do one way and do it good.

Marcelo

>> 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...
>