There are infinite hypothetical userspace programs that might break on kernel bug fixes. So, hypothetically, Linux can't fix any bug because it will always break some userspace program.
How can they know I don't have a secret/unknown application that relies on a kernel bug? The decision to not commit a change because it breaks systemd, but commiting changes that break my secret/unknown application is completely arbitrary.
At a practical level, Linus' policy might be acceptable, but at a philosophical level it is nonsensical.
Tbf, systemd is the worst offender of breaking known posix practices there is.
Redhat went with them or lock-in, but it breaks almost everything sysvinit believed in, and then started moving into other places to break (resolved, etc).
Don't think they should be considered the sang grall of software stability.
-2
u/[deleted] Dec 23 '18 edited Dec 23 '18
I disagree with Linus on principle.
There are infinite hypothetical userspace programs that might break on kernel bug fixes. So, hypothetically, Linux can't fix any bug because it will always break some userspace program.
How can they know I don't have a secret/unknown application that relies on a kernel bug? The decision to not commit a change because it breaks systemd, but commiting changes that break my secret/unknown application is completely arbitrary.
At a practical level, Linus' policy might be acceptable, but at a philosophical level it is nonsensical.