Nah, it is more a clash in that not only do the systemd devs feel the need to make their own rm equivalent. But they fail to look into the evolution of defaults for said command before going "its unix, deal with it".
Yeah it is unix, it is the kind of unix that you only find running on some old DEC somewhere. Not on a modern x86 cluster.
This while presenting systemd as being about making Linux something more than a unix clone.
And when people complain about systemd not being unix, it is about how everything is blobbed together via interfaces that keep changing at the whim of the developers.
This in contrast to how someone can pipe the output of a GNU command to the input of a BSD command and get sane results, because the interfaces are known and fixed.
People would be much more accommodating of systemd if the logind part could be used independently of the init part etc.
FWIW, the bug was fixed before Lennart even started the whole discussion.
> it is more a clash in that not only do the systemd devs feel the need to make their own rm equivalent
I disagree. It's a failure of the C standard library to not provide a recursive unlink(), so every C program that wishes to do one has to reimplement the logic manually. Most standard libraries of other languages have a recursive unlink(), for example: https://golang.org/pkg/os/#RemoveAll
Yeah it is unix, it is the kind of unix that you only find running on some old DEC somewhere. Not on a modern x86 cluster.
This while presenting systemd as being about making Linux something more than a unix clone.
And when people complain about systemd not being unix, it is about how everything is blobbed together via interfaces that keep changing at the whim of the developers.
This in contrast to how someone can pipe the output of a GNU command to the input of a BSD command and get sane results, because the interfaces are known and fixed.
People would be much more accommodating of systemd if the logind part could be used independently of the init part etc.