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

Re: complaints about systemd

On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 11:41:55AM +0200, Tomasz Kundera 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.

If you can start "more" or "sed" you should be able to start

But them again, that probably won't help as, by default, Debian doesn't
write the journal to disk (that's the syslogd's job and that writes in
the familiar (if inconsistent) text format).

>    On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 10:25 PM, Ray Andrews <[1]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 [2]debian-amd64-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
>      with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
>      [3]listmaster@lists.debian.org
>      Archive: [4][🔎] 54359D9D.5070609@eastlink.ca">https://lists.debian.org/[🔎] 54359D9D.5070609@eastlink.ca
>    --
>    Tomasz Kundera
> References
>    Visible links
>    1. mailto:rayandrews@eastlink.ca
>    2. mailto:debian-amd64-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
>    3. mailto:listmaster@lists.debian.org
>    4. [🔎] 54359D9D.5070609@eastlink.ca">https://lists.debian.org/[🔎] 54359D9D.5070609@eastlink.ca

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: