g0xA52A2A

Obligatory Cantrill reference https://youtu.be/wTVfAMRj-7E?t=5046. The whole series of these are well worth a listen.

This would seem contrary to what Mozilla are saying https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1693028#c67

I feel Solaris really got this right with its p* commands, e.g. pargs -e 42 or just penv 42 to mirror your example. Whilst in practice they may use a procfs they could use other backends if implemented on other systems without or with a differing procfs. These commands are a much cleaner interface IMHO.

Ceph is a distributed storage system whereas ZFS is not so you can't really compare the two by the capacity people run them at.

I highly recommend checking out Bryan Cantrill's talk from Surge 2013 - Leadership Without Management: Scaling Organizations by Scaling Engineers

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGkVM1B5NuI

I took issue with the previous comment as the wording "get away with" implies the user base has the release and deprecation cycles forced upon them. Whereas it is quite welcomed by the user community. OpenBSD has never targeted those wanting long term support style releases.

Recall these were never meant to live very long in the first place.

    With the internal restructuring completed and the TCP/IP protocols integrated
    with the prototype IPC facilities, several simple applications were created to
    provide local users access to remote resources. These programs, rcp, rsh,
    rlogin, and rwho were intended to be temporary tools that would eventually be
    replaced by more reasonable facilities (hence the use of the distinguishing "r"
    prefix). This system, called 4.1a, was first distributed in April 1982 for local
    use; it was never intended that it would have wide circulation, though bootleg
    copies of the system proliferated as sites grew impatient waiting for the 4.2
    release.

http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/opensources/book/kirkmck.htm...

> They removed telnetd a bit later, 2005~ish? I can't find commits

Neither can I but the man page disappears between 3.7 and 3.8 so you're correct about it being somewhere in 2005.

No they can "get away with it" due to:

- Having a regular and well tested release model.

- Having a clear policy of supporting only the current and previous release.

- Being a BSD style OS where the kernel, libc, and base programs are developed and released as a whole.

- Not making promises about binary compatibility across releases.

Not sure why this appears to be been down voted. Git's command-line interface IS terrible. Certainly not unusable as most of interact with it every day.

A somewhat satirical example of this is Steve Losh's Git Koans.

http://stevelosh.com/blog/2013/04/git-koans

That's not to say I don't think the underlying ideas of how Git works makes sense. I certainly think it's a lot better than RCS, CVS and SVN (never tired Mercurial).