Trying to see the big picture

Posted May 3, 2012 18:51 UTC (Thu) by jmorris42 (guest, #2203)
Parent article: The plumbing layer as the new kernel

A bigger question would be to ask Red Hat to give some sort of explanation of where they are trying to lead everyone else. They explicitly reject any ambition in the desktop space, loudly, publicly and on the record at every opportunity. Yet they employee the people most involved in the attempt at transforming Linux into something alien to it's previous role as the ultimate expression of the "UNIX Way." From the bottom end with systemd and all of the *kit stuff, to the middle with PulseAudio and the quest to recreate the Windows registry, all the way up the stack to the GNOMEs with their tablet madness. All too often the key people have @redhat.com on their email address.

Maybe we need to evolve beyond UNIX/POSIX. Maybe we don't. Maybe reasonable people can disagree on the question. But to have a informed discussion it would really help if we knew what the new proposed lodestar is. One gets the impression they do have a goal, that it isn't all just random code churn and overinflated egos. It all almost comes together and forms a coherent picture, but doesn't quite. It is the feeling of flailing around in the dark that is causing the most disquiet, at least for me.

Open Source need to be a little more than just dumping code over the wall.

to post comments

Trying to see the big picture

Posted May 3, 2012 19:45 UTC (Thu) by jospoortvliet (guest, #33164) [Link] (1 responses)

I think what's going on here is that there's a difference between Red Hat the company and Red Hat the employees. The modular approach of Linux, with different, independent teams, fits less with the ideas of some influential RH people than the BSD model - 'we design everything'. And almost all of the die-hard desktop people in RH are quite passionate about GNOME when it comes to the desktop so that's what should work, the rest - some even dislike the fact non-GNOME apps 'leach off their work'.

This creates some tension - but they're (part of) the 1000 pound gorilla so though luck.

Trying to see the big picture

Posted May 3, 2012 19:47 UTC (Thu) by jospoortvliet (guest, #33164) [Link]

BTW I'm not saying any of this is bad - the focus leads to good things. I personally like the cleanup and standardization that systemd brings to us and the work on gtk+ object introspection, allowing desktop apps to directly interact with system-level stuff no matter the language they use and all that seems like a good idea. I still believe having higher-level interfaces is a good idea as it lowers the amount of work and hackiness needed for the apps - but that's more of a feeling than fact.

Trying to see the big picture

Posted May 3, 2012 21:23 UTC (Thu) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]

> They explicitly reject any ambition in the desktop space

Red Hat does offer an "Enterprise Desktop" product. Maybe you mean _consumer_ desktop market?

Please, not again

Posted May 4, 2012 11:22 UTC (Fri) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129) [Link]

Dude, we've had this discussion about a million times now. Hey, if you like UNIX the way it was in 1985, then go use that and leave the rest of us alone with your religious "UNIX Way" delusion.

Trying to see the big picture

Posted May 5, 2012 2:16 UTC (Sat) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] (7 responses)

Linux is "the ultimate expression of the UNIX Way?" Are you sure?

That title would be appropriate for Minix, Mach or the Hurd, not a giant, monolithic kernel whose development is steered by sheer pragmatism.

Trying to see the big picture

Posted May 5, 2012 9:51 UTC (Sat) by juliank (guest, #45896) [Link] (5 responses)

UNIX had a monolithic kernel, so micro kernels are not that UNIXish.

Trying to see the big picture

Posted May 8, 2012 16:07 UTC (Tue) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] (4 responses)

And that, right there, is why this supposed unix philosophy is so silly.

To quote Rob Pike on doing one thing and doing it well, "those days are dead and gone and the eulogy was delivered by Perl."

Trying to see the big picture

Posted May 8, 2012 17:14 UTC (Tue) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link] (3 responses)

Even Rob Pike can be wrong, and the proof is the amount of times you use Perl vs. one job tools like ls, grep, head or sort, each and every day.

Trying to see the big picture

Posted May 8, 2012 17:51 UTC (Tue) by juliank (guest, #45896) [Link] (1 responses)

I use ls, grep, head, sort almost daily (ls definitely daily, to browse the file system), whereas I do not write perl scripts daily or execute self-written perl scripts.

Trying to see the big picture

Posted May 8, 2012 17:53 UTC (Tue) by juliank (guest, #45896) [Link]

And that's really not the only thing where Rob Pike is wrong. There are other things, such as static vs dynamic linking, and him wanting the static one.

Trying to see the big picture

Posted May 9, 2012 18:09 UTC (Wed) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]

You're comparing apples to oranges. Nobody said Perl made a better command line environment. How often do you use ls, grep, sort, etc to serve web pages?

Point is, the Unix Philosophy clan tends to dismiss tightly integrated things as bad designs. It's clear the world has room for both.

Trying to see the big picture

Posted May 5, 2012 10:02 UTC (Sat) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link]

Plan 9. Unix done right – by the people who wrote it in the first place! None of that microkernel rubbish.