Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid>
Newsgroups: comp.os.vms
Subject: Re: Upcoming time boundary events
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2025 23:46:55 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <102ag5f$1icjg$7@dont-email.me>
References: <100fp4v$1nmtf$1@dont-email.me> <100omli$3t023$1@dont-email.me>
	<100qdop$6q13$1@dont-email.me> <100qg5t$3jb0$1@dont-email.me>
	<1014ad8$2jurh$1@dont-email.me> <m9pqvoFnrcsU1@mid.individual.net>
	<874ix3np14.fsf@atr2.ath.cx> <m9sc6fFnrcsU2@mid.individual.net>
	<mn.f24a7e95dd606c32.104627@invalid.skynet.be>
	<101dc6r$mkpm$12@dont-email.me> <10253er$3n87$1@dont-email.me>
	<10259l9$4dma$3@dont-email.me> <10272en$krj5$1@dont-email.me>
	<1027oi0$ptre$11@dont-email.me> <1029tvj$1e0bk$1@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2025 01:46:56 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="e01886590aeeac956483c220d4079c0a";
	logging-data="1651312"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/rsq/dnhMxbdw8TjGaMgqe"
User-Agent: Pan/0.162 (Pokrosvk)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:SuOlLAwXQYjs6RNH/mz9H7YCKXY=

On Tue, 10 Jun 2025 19:36:35 +0100, chrisq wrote:

> On 6/9/25 23:51, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 17:34:31 +0100, chrisq wrote:
>> 
>>> That's interesting, but wonder if they really needed the overarching
>>> complpexity of systemd to enable that. More productive and less
>>> disruptive to build on what is already there, but ymmv.
>> 
>> I wonder how you see “complexity” in a unified approach to things, as
>> opposed to the old different-mechanism-for-each-connection-type legacy
>> thinking.
> 
> Good engineering is about minimising complexity as far as is practical,
> which reduces design and ongoing maintenance, management and staff
> reeducation costs. Fewer possible bugs, as well.
> 
> Better mousetraps everywhere, but most of them add nothing to the sum of
> usefulness.

Which is all very well, but still doesn’t answer the question of how you 
see “complexity” in a commonality of approach.