Making an operating system is vastly different from making an init with service supervision and resource management solution for an existing system.

The Cathedral model of design and development only works when you have everything built together within the system. BSD is developed as a single unit, but GNU/Linux is still fractured into the bazaar model, but neither way is better if you know what the purpose of the system is and how the system was intended to be designed.

The vague statement of "creating a set of building blocks for an operating system", is just that... vague.

What are these mystical building blocks, can they be duplicated outside the model effectively, was the system designed originally to be cathedral or bazaar in design and model, and is this still going to be GNU/Linux or something else entirely? GNU is the Operating System paired the Linux kernel, not systemd, so how can systemd become an operating system or even the building blocks of an operating system without replacing every aspect of the operating system? For that to occur, system would need it's own internalized libc, shell, internal library and API set, compiler, assembler, link, and debugger... effectively replacing every part of GNU, as well as fork it's own Linux kernel.

It offers a narrow spectrum of tools not unlike CoreUtils and Util-Linux offer, and nothing more. It's not a building block of an operating system. It's part of a set of building blocks, but even those blocks can be easily replaced by other blocks.

1 members found this post helpful.

More likely he means something completely different (and perhaps unique to his own imaginings) when he says "Operating System", and will ignore aspects of the OS that he doesn't care about (like the compiler). I've seen folks do this in other projects.

When you say things "we're making an operating system", you really should be careful with saying statements like that. It's bad enough when people don't speak clearly enough, but when you say something public, you should at least make sure what you are going to put out as PR is what you intend to say.

"we're making an operating system here"

does not mean the same as...

"we're creating a collection of tools to put into an operating system"

on any level.

It's not like he's the CEO of a fortune 500 company...he can say whatever he wants. I don't think he cares much about 'PR', nor should he. You could certainly criticize many of the things Linus says if you want to jump on the Public Image bandwagon, but it's all totally irrelevant.

Pottering is very arrogant, maybe he thinks he has the cat in the bag already. That Linux is Potterinx.

1 members found this post helpful.

Well, I didn't' realize that I jumped again in that train that started nearly 4 months ago and goes round in circles. So I'm jumping out again. Until next time maybe, nobody's perfect

Poettering is a young man with many good ideas, your opinion of him does not change those ideas nor does it make those ideas inherently good or bad, nor does it make him arrogant or humble.

Good ideas ? That I disagree with.

4 members found this post helpful.

Because you disagree doesn't make him or his ideas stupid, or less good, nor arrogant it simply means you disagree.

Good or bad is irrelevant. When you do PR, you get only one chance to get it right.

You have to play careful with words regardless of the fact you have an ego the size of Siberia, are arrogant as Hell, and think you're God's gift to software... or you end up with what would amount to 50% of the GNU/Linux community and 90% of the BSD community wanting to burn you at the stake for blasphemy and heresy.

Am I arrogant? Yes, and so is everyone to some extent, but am I going to say things like "I can make an operating system twice as good as Didier ever could hope to!" or "I could be three times effective the moderator as unSpawn because he is useless!" and come off like a complete doofus? Hell effing no! Are you insane?! That's bad if not completely terrible PR and only entices negativity.

1 members found this post helpful.

This only matters to those that are mad not to the "community" I'm a member of the community and I like the fact that he politely calls the anti-systemd types morons, I also like that the anti-systemd types call him a moron. I like passion not PR.

Passion is good but only in the right doses. Plus, a little subtlety never hurts.

1 members found this post helpful.

Which is a lesson you should learn. I think you're an uninformed moron but does that make you one? We all have our things so we all see through glasses that does not make what we see actual it simply makes it perspective.

Well, maybe let's not go too personal before a moderator requests that.

Oh and from a recently posted statement one could infer that I be able to make an operating system. I want to reassure everybody: no I am not.

But maybe another Didier is

It's not personal I actually like him which is my general point, because you disagree with something doesn't make it unethical or wrong. I disagree with Ayn Rand and a very profound level, but that doesn't necessarily imply that she is as a whole wrong. We can disagree with an opinion without disagreeing with a person. I disagree with both President Obama and Dr. Merkel neither are progressive enough for me but does that make them wrong?