Re:Choose your side on the Linux divide
by alaroldai on Monday August 25, 2014 @07:38PM
(#8224883)
Except that both emacs and vi can be (and have been) ported to a number of other operating systems. Systemd is tied specifically to the Linux kernel and the Linux infrastructure, in much the same way as launchd is in Mac OS 10.x. It might be more correct to say that in the emacs vs. vi debate, systemd is TextMate.
Re:Choose your side on the Linux divide
by vezzy-fnord on Monday August 25, 2014 @05:45PM
(#8224392)
The author's focus on sysvinit is unfortunate, as they did have some points.
sysvinit isn't Unix-like at all. The concept of runlevels (which are fundamentally restrictive) and the inittab aren't compatible with its design principles.
Where the init debacle is concerned as a whole, sysvinit is a gigantic red herring, often employed as part of a false dichotomy by systemd proponents. It should not be a focus at all.
So systemd would be "emacs" in the "emacs vs. vi" everlasting debate?
sysvinit isn't Unix-like at all. The concept of runlevels (which are fundamentally restrictive) and the inittab aren't compatible with its design principles.
Where the init debacle is concerned as a whole, sysvinit is a gigantic red herring, often employed as part of a false dichotomy by systemd proponents. It should not be a focus at all.