Because no one knows what they are talking about. There is a difference between a bug that's inside a program and a bug that's caused by the unexpected interaction of half a dozen programs. The only people who will see the later are those who actually use programs in the wild, e.g. system admins and not developers.
Which is exactly his point. "Have you submitted a patch" followed by "it's not our bug" doesn't help, it's down right idiotic when it comes to emergent bugs. Everyone involved can honestly say "not my problem" while you're stuck with a dead system "because you have the disabled".
Mr.Poettering et al seem not to realize that bugs don't just come from within programs but from how programs interact with their environment. When you hide all the details behind a single monolithic process it is either "this works" or "this doesn't" and there's nothing you can do about it. When it's a shell script trying together 20 programs it's "this kind mostly works apart from when x happens, which I can have a check for".
> When you hide all the details behind a single monolithic process it is either "this works" or "this doesn't" and there's nothing you can do about it.
The exact kind of behavior that has driven many from Windows to Linux.
Which is exactly his point. "Have you submitted a patch" followed by "it's not our bug" doesn't help, it's down right idiotic when it comes to emergent bugs. Everyone involved can honestly say "not my problem" while you're stuck with a dead system "because you have the disabled".
Mr.Poettering et al seem not to realize that bugs don't just come from within programs but from how programs interact with their environment. When you hide all the details behind a single monolithic process it is either "this works" or "this doesn't" and there's nothing you can do about it. When it's a shell script trying together 20 programs it's "this kind mostly works apart from when x happens, which I can have a check for".