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

Re: why do we use systemd?

On 05/07/2014 11:01, Reco wrote:
  Ok, I'll bite.

On Sat, 05 Jul 2014 10:21:01 +0100
Balint <balint.szgt@gmail.com> wrote:


Just read them and protest to developer drop this piece of sh*t!
Who should be contacted for this 'drop', in your option?
I don't know, I've just wanted to notify people this approach is not the best. My opinion is, the SystemV was good. There were built many other daemon (dbus, ifup/down scripts) which handled the hw changes, so I really don't understand, why the system drop something which worked correctly.
This implementation is going to become Linux to Windows.
Your user-agent says:

User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101

Can you please elaborate why exactly turning anything into Windows
bothers you?
Indeed, today  I use Windows because I'm not home.
The system will
have main almighty process which can't be updated without restart.
Please research some more before making such assumptions.
What do you think? According to my knowledge (maybe it has some gaps) the systemd replace the init process which means it became the first process. You can't restart just if you restart the box. But correct me if I'm wrong.
that process will be corrupted the all system is f****d.
Pid=1 process crash = kernel panic. It's well-known Linux behaviour
since '91. How exactly systemd is different in this regard?
Related by update, plus, if the PID 1 process handles everything, (HW changes, network, logs, etc) and will have crash, it will crash the system.
Why did we choose it?
I really do NOT understand.
sorry, I can't reach this site.


Reply to: