Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

The problem is - they are keeping adding unnecessary stuff to just keep going, regardless of whether it is better, rational or not.

All those replacement of classic shell-script-based start-up tools, adding countless "managers" and "buses" and "services" and "settings daemons" just makes the whole thing worse.

It is like MS or SAP - keep producing bigger and bigger bloatware until there are no more suckers to buy it.

Piling up meaningless stuff is not just a Linux distro problem. It is also in languages (look at CL or R6RS) and libraries. Almost everywhere, especially in non-CS world.)

The more sane approach is, surprise! of BSD systems. They have an OS and a system of packages made out of ports of OSS software. They keep the core OS stable, sane, and without unnecessary, unreasonable changes. CenOS also has some additional repositories, but it is basically a polished Fedora anyway.




> All those replacement of classic shell-script-based start-up tools

In case you are referring to the introduction of systemd, I'll mention that Arch Linux has also made the switch, and away from the BSD style in doing so. None of my Arch installs became unstable or slower and the reasons explained for the switch seemed rational: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1149530#p1149530

-----


Spot on. Everytime I have to debug dbus, udev, acpid or anything horrid like that, it throws me one step back towards freebsd.

They just aren't part of the Unix philosophy. NT perhaps.

-----




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: