diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/systemd.html | 63 |
1 files changed, 57 insertions, 6 deletions
diff --git a/doc/systemd.html b/doc/systemd.html index 7b6c56a..a6a3aa0 100644 --- a/doc/systemd.html +++ b/doc/systemd.html @@ -54,7 +54,8 @@ much against: <ul> <li> The Unix philosophy, which is to do one job and do it well; </li> <li> The <a href="http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/">bazaar</a> -approach that has made the free software ecosystem what it is today; </li> +approach that has made the free software ecosystem what it is today - see +below; </li> <li> Cross-platform compatibility. BSD is not dead, Solaris is not dead, but systemd ignores Unix. It even ignores Linux to some extent: the systemd authors had the guts to ask for specific kernel interfaces! </li> @@ -69,8 +70,56 @@ distribution model of systemd, made of lobbying and bullying, is much more akin to the distribution model of Microsoft Windows than the one of GNU/Linux. </p> +<h3> Project development vs. ecosystem development </h3> + +<p> +I claim that systemd goes against the bazaar approach; someone noted that +the s6 development model is cathedral-like, and found it confusing. How +can I blame systemd for not embracing the bazaar when I myself don't +either? My answer was the following: +</p> + +<p> + I actually do not support bazaar as a <em>development model for a +project</em>. +I believe that quality software can only be written by keeping a tight grip +on what goes in, with a clear vision about the scope and design of the +project, +and that can only be achieved with very small teams. Free software following +the bazaar development model is notoriously bad at quality control; the +only way to have a project working is to have a small lead team +performing integration control - this is the way the Linux kernel works, for +instance, and it has a <em>huge</em> developer base. +</p> + +<p> +(The other more or less viable development model for a project is to be +company-driven: making up for the lack of technical excellence with +manpower and procedures. Needless to say, companies usually do not +produce either free or good software, and they are not efficient at +doing so.) +</p> + +<p> + However, I also believe that the scope of a project should be clearly +defined and limited, and I very +much support the blossoming of as many well-scoped projects as can be, and +total freedom about the interfaces and communication points between all those +projects. I support bazaar as a <em>development model for a software +ecosystem</em>: +everybody can write software that interacts +with other software on their machine, in the way they choose. +To me, that is entirely what free software is about. +</p> + <p> - Which says something. + systemd gets it wrong on all levels. It has a large developer +base, so no really coherent vision (and the vision it has is technically +inept, see below); its quality control is company-driven, with +all the drawbacks that it has; <em>and</em> it has an insanely +large scope and tries to enforce the use of its own interfaces for new +software development, essentially proprietarizing the ecosystem, which is +very much the opposite of bazaar. </p> <h2> The technical issue </h2> @@ -96,13 +145,15 @@ aims to make the machine work and that application software depends upon. The goal of an operating system is to make it possible to run <em>applications</em>, and system software should always partake in that goal. <strong>System software should stay the heck out of the way</strong>, which is exactly what systemd does -not. +not. In that respect, it is very similar to Microsoft Windows. Again. </p> <p> - Technically as well as politically, systemd is actually very similar to -Microsoft Windows. If it is not fought, it is going to cause a lot of harm -to the Linux ecosystem. It has already begun. +Listing all the technical flaws of systemd is a lifetime's work; some +people have pointed out the most glaring ones - there are a few links +below. My point is that the "we will solve problems by doing more" +approach chosen by the systemd developers is a newbie mistake, and the +root cause of all those flaws; systemd is technically unsustainable. </p> <p> |