[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: complaints about systemd



What I find most frustrating of all is that there are LOTS of valid concerns for the use of systemd but that it is coming out at the point of implementation.  I am sure I am a bit out of the loop with with daily tasks etc but this kinda seems like it came out of nowhere destined for integration without even a simple PROS and CONS being done in it's design phase.  The CONCEPT of systemd sounds great but the implementation/design has more "easy" to notice holes that it makes you wonder what else has been overlooked with it...

Would personally like to express a "me too" to all the comments on this thread so far as they sum up my concerns of simplicity, transparency and accessibility in regards to system start up and logging. 

On Thu, Oct 9, 2014 at 5:41 AM, Tomasz Kundera <tnkundera@gmail.com> wrote:
 I'd like to say "me too" as the shortest opinion. Dealing with local networks it is absolutely not important how much time the boot takes. Most machines works all the time. During maintenance reboots I can wait a few seconds more. But the complete lack of simplicity and transparency is horrible. Binary logs are horrible, too. Logs are mostly needed when some troubles arises. In that situation they should be accessible as easy and fast as possible. Often there will be no possibility to start a dedicated binary log analyzer. You need only "more" and "sed" to deal with text logs. systemd with no possibility to stay with SystemV is a horrible mistake.

On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:25 PM, Ray Andrews <rayandrews@eastlink.ca> wrote:
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




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-amd64-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 54359D9D.5070609@eastlink.ca" target="_blank">https://lists.debian.org/54359D9D.5070609@eastlink.ca




--
Tomasz Kundera


Reply to: