[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       opensuse
Subject:    Re: [opensuse] systemd
From:       Anton Aylward <opensuse () antonaylward ! com>
Date:       2017-07-14 21:55:44
Message-ID: 1e76366d-9272-0199-e1f1-9500363b6a80 () antonaylward ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On 14/07/17 04:22 PM, Brian K. White wrote:
> 
> Uh, the better idea had already been proposed, and it proved itself for decades.
> Nothing about systemd improves upon it.

They probably said the same thing about 'horseless carriages' back when.
I mean, after all, the horse had proven itself for not just decades, but for
centuries!

Some of are old enough to remember when USG introduced what we now call
SysVinit.   That "SysV" refers to System V, which they introduced in the early
1980s.  They declared it to be the "last ever" revision of UNIX.

HA!

The firm I worked for at the time wanted an evaluation of the 'changes'.
The introduction of what we now call 'SysVinit" was minor in comparison to some
of the others.  Some of the code base went from the extremely elegant version of
the 'founders' to stuff that was such spaghetti as to be unmanageable.

The whole print subsystem had been reworked.  Eventually that got discarded; it
was supposed to be a glorious, script driven subsystem characterized by being,
among other things, " flexible, extensible, simple, deterministic, media and
hardware agnostic, and easily ported across machine architectures.  I'll grant
you that it was all those things.  everybody ripped it out and replaced it with
3rd party.

One of the side effects to the awful USG code was the work by henry Spencer,
then at University of Toronto, to reimplement vast tracts of code, starting with
the basic C libraries, from the V7 manual definitions and put his code in the
public domain.


> systemd is like saying you think you invented a better way to do accounting. All
> that best-practices stuff they taught everyone for decades, so old and obsolete,
> we have a better way where we don't have to do all that annoying double entry
> stuff. Oh ok. Got it.

Once again you've come up with a ridiculous argument.  I'm sure anyone who is
familiar with the classic Logical Facilities can point out the details.

No, in actual fact double entry, which is a BOOKKEEPING system, not an
accounting system, met resistance compared to the system of book-keeping it was
to replace back hen it was introduced, since the previous system had been in
used for thousands for years.  Not quite as long as we'd been riding horses, but
certainly a very long time.

It is a BOOK-KEEPING system that was originally developed to deal with fraud, by
having what amounts to dual independent ledgers that are then reconciled.

For many systems single entry is quite adequate and the IRS advises small
business to use it.

Some things are difficult with double entry and hence it has sometimes been
replaced by a 'triple entry' system.


-- 
         A: Yes.
     >   Q: Are you sure?
     >>  A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
     >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?


-- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]