Re: Is missing SysV-init support a bug?
Philipp Kern schreef op 28-08-2016 12:41:
I am sorry I allowed myself to be drawn into this.
That "severely broken init script" is thus nothing more serious than any
other script out there, and the "very bad race condition" is one of the
most simple problems to solve, and has long since been solved by
probably every package out there in whatever way.
It is also the basic gist of what SystemD provides of course, but it is
not like this is a new world problem of any kind.
That "very serious race condition" is nothing more than one daemon
having to wait for the other while starting up. THAT'S IT. Oh and
knowing when something has died so you can restart it or something.
Of course running backgrounds scripts that do this sort of thing is
perhaps not the most elegant thing to do, but that was not the point
here. The point was that it was "severely broken" or something of the
kind. And all that was required was a form of status notification that
you could really whip up in two hours at the base, and, seeing how
programming goes, would take a lot longer to fine-tune, but not a world
class problem here.
How can people seriously use words such as "very bad race condition" and
"really poor" to the point that you need to "use systemd to reliably use
conntrackd as a daemon" (paraphrased) when that situation could be
resolved with 2 hours of writing... at least to the point of
satisfaction to not be having to call it "really poor" anymore. And that
"SystemD's superiority" is a self-created thing here. "no serious
implementation would use sysvinit". Perhaps, but no serious
implementation would use SystemD either.
But that's not the relevance. The idea that systemd is clearly superior
to sysvinit is just something you concoct up because you don't know how
to write a service file or script and you want to let systemd do the
hard work. Yes, I mean systemd as a daemon. A name and a binary package
or binary file are two different things. We don't have to call
everything by their binaries, not at all.
Bash programming is not hard, at least not for me, dash programming is
somewhat harder but with the tools you can do everything. The only thing
difficult and incomprehensible about bash is redirects. I mean the exec
style and changing one channel into another.
But to think that such a simple and rudimentary software design and
software engineering problem would be considered reason enough to call
one piece of software superior to another, is beyond me.
And it's just a sorry state of affairs form my point of view. I mean,
where is the software quality here? Do we always have to put up with
I have been programming since I was 12 and I have won tournaments. Well,
only one, my friends did the rest in a sense. And I am just amazed at
how such important words are used for such simple things.
And I just don't really want to have anything to do with that, I am
sorry I came here. Blowing things up and making something sound very
important when it is not. Simple problems that can be solved in an hour
or two (if you are already the one who has invested in the software, of
course, which obviously any random person cannot and will not do).
And perhaps a better solution would take more work, but still that is
just the same.
I will go stick my head in some .... hole again, sorry I was here ;-).
Still, you are more rational, more clear, more to the point, and more
concise people than what I have seen so far around the waters.
But having such a huge debate from that point of view, over the most
rudimentary of software engineering difficulties, that are not named
until they are put in that blog post.
Unnamed issues that are made to appear HUGE. And they are so simple and
so small, a child could do it. (I like did that sort of thing when I was
14 or 15). (But it was like assembler and pascal and writing interrupt
handlers and being awesome ;-)).
And I just wonder how many times I am fooled by something that some
person uses big words for to describe great difficulty and stuff that is
impossible and hard to get around and sufficient and adequate reasons to
call something Necessity. And then when you get down to it you know you
could get around it in an instant.
Necessity yes. Such a foolish word at times, mostly.
Only the fools believe in the Necessity of things, I guess.
Well let me be the fool then and consider that I need to learn more
about my own inadequacies before I start to name those of others ;-).
Bye I guess, once more, I don't know.