Comment Re:I agree with Lennart (Score 4, Insightful) 551
Lennart is right about being more UNIX like.
Wait, what?
*reads TFA*
Hahahaha, oh well:
Lennart Poettering: [...] most people who say Systemd is un-Unixish have no idea what Unix is actually like.
What’s typical for Unix, for example, is that all the tools, the C library, the kernel, are all maintained in the same repository, right? And they’re released in sync, have the same coding style, the same build infrastructure, the same release cycles – everything’s the same. So you get the entire central part of the operating system like that. If people claim that, because we stick a lot of things into the Systemd repository, then it’s un-Unixish, then it’s absolutely the opposite. It’s more Unix-ish than Linux ever was!
The Linux model is the one where you have everything split up, and have different maintainers, different coding styles, different release cycles, different maintenance statuses. Much of the Linux userspace used to be pretty badly maintained, if at all. You had completely different styles, the commands worked differently – in the most superficial level, some used -h for help, and others ––help. It’s not uniform.
If we put a lot of the glue in one repository, it’s not all the way towards Unix, but it’s half way between traditional Linux and traditional Unix. We do not put libc and the kernel in the same repository, just the basic things. So that’s a misconception that I’m always bemused about, and I’m pretty sure that most people who claim that have never actually played around with Unix at all.
Wow... Just.. wow.
TL;DR his sole argument for systemd being "like traditional unix" is that they're maintaining it in one (as opposed to dozens of) source code repos.
I think this is the dumbest reasoning i've ever heard. I also like how he calls systemd non-monolithic, of course, without giving any reason for why that is.
