Bill Rugolsky Jr. wrote:
By two networking configuration stacks you mean the traditional
and the NetworkManager way? Wouldn't it have been better to have
an actual design ... rather than thinking up a GUI interface to some
use case, then starting coding?
Pete's condescension is right on target: core Linux components are
being replaced by people who, by their own admission, "hate Unix."
Well, the former goes hand in hand with the latter, apparently. There
is a saying: "Those that don't understand Unix are comdemned to
reimplement it ... poorly".
It seems that an "unusual requirement" is one that is
inconvenient for that other operating system, i.e., a requirement
that foregoes the monkey pressing buttons in front of a
The irony is that legacy operating systems are moving in the opposite
direction, introducing text, tools and domain-specific little languages.
Unix/Linux carries years of baggage, mis-designed features, and
implementations. But today's GNOME hackers seem to have completely
missed the value of (1) text, (2) tools, and (3) domain-specific little
languages and protocols. One area where Unix went somewhat astray is
that script and config syntax differences created unnecessary impedance [the
original point of this thread] -- the Lisp machine folks had that much
right. Two decades later, it's easy to see that domain-specific languages
are best built without inventing lots of arcane syntax; these days S-exprs
have been replaced by XML, XSLT (*vomit*), and worse.
In my experience, XML does not really work for domain specific languages
because it is too heavy on syntax baggage for humans - it is best
thought of as textual XDR: good for program-to-program data interchange.
I believe your reaction to XSLT confirms this.
simply stuffing name/value config pairs in a file is not the same as
I'm not holding my breath waiting for support for 20-year-old
"unusual requirements" to be bolted on later.
There is no place like /home.