You mean, like the Windows Registry? Nothing ever went wrong with the kitchen-sink approach to design, right?

thanks

Your claims that systemD is well engineered are a little eye-raising. We're talking about a replacement for the init system here, and you say the main feature is logind. That's not really part of what I expect Init to do.....

In any case, in a few months, I'll have time to read the systemD source code, and I will have a better idea if it's well designed or not.

What will happen is other distress will add a compatibility layer so they can handle all the kludge that has added systemD as a requirement.

The problem is systemD is bad design. The systemD guys like to say, "but look at all the features!", which is cool, but features aren't an excuse for bad design. "Those who do not understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly" etc etc

It has a reputation for security compared to Windows, which is not saying much. Look through a database of security vulnerabilities sometime, it's depressing.

Also worth mentioning that the kernel guys keep as much stuff out of the kernel as possible. There's even a way to segregate drivers into userland. Doing so comes with a performance hit, but if that is relatively unimportant, then it's worth keeping out. Drivers for scanners are part of the kernel, but kept in userland (as one example).

Inetd being an example of why systemD is a rather bad idea.

Maybe you think so. I enjoy it.

I should change that.....System V is an example of something that's outgrown it's original design. Improvement is needed, but........

That's an interesting hypothesis, but.....

I don't think there's much support in the evidence for this idea.

This has been a complaint for a long, long time. In fact, there are at least two projects right now being written in an attempt to replace X.

I'm not sure that's accurate......it seems he's actually saying, "UNIX Philosophy is hard to implement in complex systems." It seems to me the reason he doesn't have much of an opinion is because he hasn't spent the time necessary to think it through deeply. There might be a better solution or not, he doesn't know.

And I think it makes sense......SystemD is a heap of trash, but System V isn't an example of great design, either.

A google search for "terrorists are engineers" turns up a heap of relevant links, but here is one in particular from the IEEE.

My hypothesis is that working as an engineer in Pakistan (for example) is one of the most miserable jobs you can have, with horrible managers and only somewhat better pay to compensate. Having seen how it is, I would rather work as a farmer than an engineer in that situation, it's more satisfying and enjoyable.

No, there's been an open source implementation of OpenStep (the real name of Cocoa) for decades. Some of the platform stuff is Apple specific, but that is true of Linux and OpenBSD as well. You can handle it the same way you handle any other platform incompatibility: encapsulate the incompatibility into as small a piece as possible.

Believe it or not, you can actually compile Objective-C code for Android and run it. Of course, you will have to recompile it, but that's not an issue when you have the source code.

This is exactly right. The US government could close this loophole, "crack down" on corporate tax avoidance, without any global cooperation. All they need to do is pass the law, and Obama can sign it.

The OECD has no power to change anything here, so instead they did something they have power to accomplish: they wrote a report. Bravo.

Other problems:

1) The Swift compiler is buggy. A language with compiler bugs is painful to use.
2) Locked in to a single platform.
3) Apple has a habit of eliminating support for languages/tools on a whim.

I would be very careful before dedicating resources to Swift.