On 08/11/13 15:30, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote: [...]
No one cares about the "Unix philosophy" (TM), it's not some super holy cow we're not allowed to touch. Additionally, original Unix sucks, it's all the GNU- and Linux-specific extensions that actually made it usable.
Not a holy cow, but just the foundations of Unix itself, and also those of Linux. It is very important that we stick to it as much as reasonable to avoid being a so-integrated-that-bugs-are-untreatable system. That deep integration es exactly what is making us have this discussion as "GNOME depends on logind", "logind depends on systemd" and none of the are easyly debuggable by the System Administrator (not so easyly like init scripts). Moreover, saying that "original Unix sucks" is both three untrue, not fair, and insulting. Untrue because "Original Unix" includes quite modern, useable and trustable systems like Solaris. Not fair because "Original Unix" had by large not so many active developers as Linux/GNU systems, and it is also is quite more older. About insulting, the word you selected speaks by itself.
Please note that I'm not saying systemd is bad, nor that sysvinit is perfect. I'm just saying you were truly wrong with your sentence.
systemvinit has two main advantages: that scripts are easyly tweakable by the system administrator both to debug and to adjust system defaults, and that systemvinit does one thing (starting and stopping services on system start/stop or under admin command) and does it reasonably well. Everything else interfaces clearly. I have not read how modular any other option is, how clearly defined are the interfaces, nor how debuggable they are. And yes, I have not read how "unixy" any other system is.
And yes, I agree systemvinit scripts are a mess (at least some of them) and have a lot of ducplicated code.
Regards Noel Torres er Envite