Re: Elisp addiction not as bad in light of Linux forkoholism

[Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net>]

"Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> writes:

> Dan Espen <despen@verizon.net> writes:
>
>> "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> writes:
>>
>>> I've not looked at systemd too closely, but AFAICS, the problem is not
>>> child-diseases, but more that it's not enough unixy.
>>
>> It's like an echo.  I keep reading this same opinion.
>>
>> 1. I don't know much about it
>> 2. It's bad.
>>
>> Spend a little time appreciating the simplicity of systemd
>> and then reach your conclusion.  In my opinion, the  design is
>> good and it takes a whole bunch of disorganized shell scripts
>> and turns them into data.  I nice simple, readable data structure.
>
> Notice that you're the first one I read expressing this judgement about
> systemd.  It's certainly encouraging to have a closer look at it.

Seems to me we have a culture that encourages disparaging everything.

I do notice that common pattern of the people bad-talking systemd
all starting out with "I don't know much about it".

That encouraged me to take a look.
I had no reason to look before then because I had no problems working
with it.  I noticed some commands changed, but they worked perfectly.

One of the primary attributes of systemd is that it took a whole bunch
of daemon admin scripts, found the commonalities, then replaced
them with data files.

This attitude that I know better than the experts is dumb.
At least learn something before you open your mouth.
(Not you, the generic you.)

-- 
Dan Espen