I'm sorry, but you're not making any sense. If a closed system is a project you can fork on github, with ~ 260 contributors and libraries like python-systemd, I don't know how you define "closed".
> So it's contrary to the idea that modularity is achieved through clearly defined interfaces, so "the same codebase" is an unnecessary luxury for lazy designers.
Right. So, the systemd Debian package on my machine has 21 separate binaries. Who in their right mind would want to have 21 separate repositories to keep in sync?
As for "cleanly defined interfaces", I don't know how having several different systems in the same codebase prevents that. Which parts of systemd do you feel are not well-documented and prevents you from writing code to interact with it, or replace part of it?
I'm sorry, but you're not making any sense. If a closed system is a project you can fork on github, with ~ 260 contributors and libraries like python-systemd, I don't know how you define "closed".
> So it's contrary to the idea that modularity is achieved through clearly defined interfaces, so "the same codebase" is an unnecessary luxury for lazy designers.
Right. So, the systemd Debian package on my machine has 21 separate binaries. Who in their right mind would want to have 21 separate repositories to keep in sync?
As for "cleanly defined interfaces", I don't know how having several different systems in the same codebase prevents that. Which parts of systemd do you feel are not well-documented and prevents you from writing code to interact with it, or replace part of it?