Re: A few observations about systemd
Le vendredi 22 juillet 2011 à 09:58 +0200, Stephan Seitz a écrit :
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:37:48PM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> >Le jeudi 21 juillet 2011 à 20:01 +0200, Stephan Seitz a écrit :
> >So, since you don’t need it, other people don’t need it either?
> No, since I don’t need it, I don’t want to be forced to use it.
So you prefer to force your crap onto others, of course.
> >You know, there are some who just want to use their server or desktop,
> >not to spend their time editing files to tune boot ordering.
> Bullshit. I don’t know any user or administrator of servers or desktops
> who have network conditions changing so fast that they often need to
> change network configuration files. Notebook users are different when
> they often change their locations, but they can use Network Manager if
> they want (I don’t need it for my notebook). In fact, NM gets pulled in
> anyway when you install gnome, so you don’t need to manually install it.
Server or desktop, the hardware and the kernel are entirely event-based
now. This is important for the network, and it is even more important
for the boot system. It’s not a question of changing configuration files
or whatnot, it’s a question of having it working, and working reliably.
> >> I don’t care if systemd is part of Debian, so you can choose to
> >> install it, like you can choose between sysklogd, syslog-ng and
> >> rsyslog. But I don’t think it is worth to replace sysvinit.
> >That’s utter bullshit. There is ZERO point in being able to choose
> >between several init systems. If the technology allows it, it’s fine to
> Well, in the end there is ZERO point in chosing between different desktop
> manager or text editors. You are only confusing users.
Indeed. This is why we only install one desktop environment at a time.
We even ship different CD images for that purpose. As for text editors,
I’m the first one to say we have gazillions of useless ones, and merely
a handful that are actually useful.
Still, it is way easier to switch a desktop environment or a text editor
than to switch init systems. And it’s more useful, since different
desktop environments or text editors have different sets of user-visible
features. An init system is not something for the user to see, it should
just do the job properly.
If you want a more suitable comparison, supporting two init systems
would be like supporting two packaging formats. It means more work for
all maintainers to support all possible combinations, and it doesn’t
change anything for end users.
> >road to disaster. Users expect one init system that works fine, not 3
> >with different sets of flaws.
> And sysvinit is working fine. I never had a system not booting because of
That’s because init scripts are full of hacks to work around its
deficiencies, thanks to tireless tuning work from the maintainers. And
even with these hacks, you can always meet a condition (hardware
combination, complex partitioning scheme, network configuration) for
which it will not work, or - even worse - work randomly.
.''`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :