Linux - GeneralThis Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Distribution: Debian Sid AMD64, Raspbian Wheezy, various VMs
Posts: 7,680
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by dijetlo
It is a recent example of another open source project that solved a problem that nobody in the commercial world (at least) had. People who didn't understand how easily and cheaply that issue could be remdiated, lobbied heavily for it, and in the final analysis, it's not cost effective in many use cases.
In my own professional area, which is probably why I'm dwelling on it, I deal with "dev/ops" engineers who know how to code but can't understand a node. When they find out that's how we roll it up in prod (where almost all the servers live), they're aghast. You're a luddite! Perhaps... but at least I'm not a fanboy...
Nobody likes fanboys, especially the guy who cut the checks.
Allow that thinking to shape you're coding and you'll produce things people want to use instead of try.
OK, either you're making a joke I'm not getting or you didn't get the joke I made. I meant if he'd hit him harder he wouldn't like hagis, not that somebody needs to hit 273 really hard.
Sorry for any confusion, fortunately 273 got it.
OK, either you're making a joke I'm not getting or you didn't get the joke I made. I meant if he'd hit him harder he wouldn't like hagis, not that somebody needs to hit 273 really hard.
Sorry for any confusion, fortunately 273 got it.
It is a recent example of another open source project that solved a problem that nobody in the commercial world (at least) had. People who didn't understand how easily and cheaply that issue could be remdiated, lobbied heavily for it, and in the final analysis, it's not cost effective.
I think that you would be hard-pressed to come up with a bibliography to support that position.
Nevertheless – it may be said that both projects are serious attempts to accommodate various aspects of the profound(!) changes that have occurred in the world of computer hardware, as well as in the deployment situations in which hardware now finds itself.
"This being Linux, you can make your own personal decisions with regard to your systems. However, Linux is now being deployed into an astonishing number of very different scenarios. Your situation is now only one of a great many.
Sometimes, the best thing to do with an old and venerable software system is "to replace it." Unix was first put on the table in the 1970's, and since I was there, I can attest that the design decisions which were made in those days have no relevance today. ("Not in our wildest dreams could we have ever ... although it sure-the-hell has been fun ... etc.") Much the same situation has also happened with regards to graphics. The underlying architecture of a "laptop" or "desktop" has zero-nada-zero to do with that of "a phone." And, who knows what might come next.
"It's okay to supersede something. Really ..."
Last edited by sundialsvcs; 02-26-2017 at 09:52 PM.
I think that you would bethard-pressed to come up with a bibliography to support that position.
Bibliography? Dude I can barely read, I think you're setting the bar way to high....People who see the problem don't write books about it, they just shake their heads.
Quote:
accommodate various aspects of the profound(!) changes that have occurred in the world of computer hardware
Perhaps you meant to say "computer software" since that's what virtualization is. Things haven't changed much in the server world since they tossed the pizza boxes in the dumpsters and slid the blades on racks with high speed backbones. That said, you can control the boot process of a virtual machine the same way you can a physical one.
Quote:
Sometimes, the best thing to do with an old and venerable software system is "to replace it.
... with something better.
And by better, I mean cheaper to run, not having a more convenient API.
The one question I've always wanted to ask someone who is knowledgeable about the thinking behind systemd is, since we have dbus which spawns at boot, and systemd doesn't do anythin dbus couldn't do past that point (we can control the boot process any number of ways so let's skip that part) why didn't they build out dbus instead of building a brand new service? Now we have two demonic processes, and a churning host of their worker threads, running constantly.
EDIT:
On second reading, this sounds somewhat irritated with you and systemd, I'm neither, actually, just more curious as to why they didn't go with what would appear to be the default choice.
Quote:
"It's okay to supersede something. Really ..."
Couldn't agree more. That's what pays my bills so devil take the man who cries "hold!"...
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.