Re: Perfect Jessie is something like this...
On 02/11/14 13:12, Marty wrote:
> On 11/01/2014 10:00 PM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>> On 02/11/14 12:19, Frank McCormick wrote:
>>> On 11/01/2014 08:58 PM, Scott Ferguson wrote:
>>>> For the purpose of education not to fan silly semantic
>>>> pedantics.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 02/11/14 05:24, Miles Fidelman wrote: <snipped>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Second, we're not talking about vaguely "unixy" - we're
>>>>>> talking about a well developed philosophy of designing
>>>>>> things that dates back to Ken Thompson, et. al (c.f., "The
>>>>>> UNIX Programming Environment,"or
>>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy).
>>>> I keep wondering if that's a cause of confusion.
>>>>
>>>> Why does the Linux kernel, GNU, and the rest of userland*have*
>>>> to be done "the UNIX" way??
>>>>
>>>> I keep hearing this assertion, but neither Linus Torvalds, or
>>>> RMS/seem/ to support it's requirement. Could you expand on why
>>>> this is a requirement from the people that produce's point of
>>>> view??
>>>
>>> In this interview he makes it clear he does not think the entire
>>> Linux system has to be done "the UNIX way".
>>
>> *Which does not answer my question.*
>>
>>
>> I'm well aware that neither RMS or Linus do not advocate that
>> "Linux, kernel and userland" are UNIX, not have to be "the UNIX
>> way".
>>
>> I'm asking why (some) people keep insisting that systemd is bad *because
>> it's not the UNIX way*.
>>
>> It sounds like a strawman - but I'm giving the benefit of the doubt
>> and asking for clarification. I'm uncertain of your
>> intention/comprehension of the question Frank - but your response
>> is not an answer to my question.
>
> My answer is systemd doesn't have to be done the Unix way. It's a
> red herring. Nobody complains about Android not being the Unix way.
> It's irrelevant.
Thanks for your answer Marty. I agree
Never-the-less I was hoping for an answer from those that propose that
"systemd is bad because it's not 'the UNIX way'".
>
> The relevant question is should Debian be implemented the Unix way,
That's where we disagree - both in the logic schema employed, and the
"relevance".
1. My /understanding/ is that Debian (the Universal Operating System)
does not implement "everything" "the UNIX way". Is there a reference to
this requirement?
2. The "question" is not that Debian /should/ implement "everything"
"the UNIX way" (which would seem to be "shifting the goal posts")
> or should one software suite gobble up so many modular services that
> Debian is no longer Unix-like in any meaningful way?
Aside from the slanted and contentious phrasing (unintentional?) it's:-
; (perhaps unintentionally) sophist rhetoric (the conclusion is only
true if the first assumption is - and relies on Debian being "UNIX-like"
; more of the Gish Gallop that characterises much of the (alleged)
opposition to systemd. A form of pseudo argument I find distasteful and
dishonest.
Kind regards
--
"Turns out you can't back a winner in the Gish Gallop" ~ disappointed punter
Reply to: