Re: complaints about systemd

[Ray Andrews <rayandrews@eastlink.ca>]

On 10/08/2014 12:39 PM, ael wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 08, 2014 at 03:32:58PM +0200, Michael wrote:
> > The new system reduces some complexity on one side while introducing much more on the other.
> The whole design so far as I can see lacks the simplicity and
> transparency that the greatest minds in computer science advocate.
>
> That seems to be confirmed in that systemd is more or less permanently
> broken, ...
I don't  know enough to weigh in on this, but I spent the morning 
researching the subject and it does seem like this is no small issue.  I 
myself am deeply troubled by what I read, it seems that cleverness has 
replaced level-headedness, wiz-bang technology has replaced simplicity 
and transparency, and featureitis has replaced stability.  I hope this 
gets sorted out.  Me, I want my computer to boot reliably, and I 
wouldn't care even if it did take 2 seconds longer, and I want to be 
able to understand and even edit how it works.  But that's just me.


> at least on all my machines. It takes *far longer* to boot up
> and particularly shutdown than ever the old init system did.
> I have given up even thinking about bug reporting it: what do I say?
> Where are the logs that throw any light on the system problems?
> Which bug do I report when it changes from day to day?
>
> I suspect that many others are in a similar situation, so that the bug
> tracking doesn't reflect the real situation.
>
> All of that said, some of the underlying design ideas are good, but
> particulary concurrent systems need that simplicity and transparency, and
> the technology to do it exists if little used.
>
> ael