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

Re: I'm not a huge fan of systemd

LOL, how do you do it Andrei? You've tried and failed to rebut me three

On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 14:28:55 +0300
Andrei POPESCU <andreimpopescu@gmail.com> wrote:

> It seems to me like you're trolling, but I'll assume good faith and 
> reply anyway.
> On Vi, 18 iul 14, 18:22:49, Steve Litt wrote:
> > On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 18:29:23 +0200
> > Sven Joachim <svenjoac@gmx.de> wrote:
> > > 
> > > They should read the mail[1] by one of its maintainers which
> > > states that it was (and is) _not_ "working just fine", and that a
> > > replacement has long been overdue.
> > 
> > I've used Linux every day since March 2001, and I never had a
> > problem with the way it booted or initialized, other than Grub2.
> > Until this systemd thing came up, I never heard an *actual Linux
> > user* gripe about its init, although of course the pro-Microsoft
> > and pro-Apple folks griped about it all the time.
> Sorry, but this is not about you. From what I can tell you're not
> even using applications requiring systemd, so what are you actually 
> complaining about?

Which is exactly why I added never hearing of an *actual Linux user*.
It's not about me. It's about people who use Linux every day to get
their work done. They're clamoring for a lot of things, but a new init
system isn't one of them.

> > Some guy writing an email about all the theoretical flaws in a
> > product doesn't make the product flawed for the millions who boot
> > their computers with it everyday, and never give it another
> > thought. The few who really have a problem with the way Linux inits
> > up could have been given upstart or systemd or, for that matter,
> > daemontools as an alternative, without affecting the vast majority
> > who saw absolutely no problem with the way it had been done.
> This is not "some guy", but the sysvinit maintainer. And I don't mean 
> just the Debian package.
> http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/sysvinit

OK, I'll bow down and worship his development chops, but that doesn't
mean I want to be forced not only to use his software, but to have half
the apps I use forced to march in step with his software.

Now of course, you've pointed out that it's not about me, so let me say
that a heck of a lot of the Debian-User posts reflected *precisely* the
same attitude I spoke of in the preceding paragraph.

> > And finally, note that the guy's email doesn't specifically
> > recommend systemd, and as a matter of fact seems to gravitate
> > toward upstart, which has a long history of doing the right thing
> > and is known by many.

[clip a couple paragraphs proving that his email preceded systemd]

Hey, don't blame *me*, *you* were the guy who used his email to
"prove" that there was something wrong with the old init system. And I
pointed out that nothing he said in that email in any way supported an
entangled bunch of stuff with tentacles growing into everything. And he
never mentioned encrypted log files.

> Mind also that Canonical shot 
> themselves in the foot with the upstart CLA, which probably prevented
> a lot of folks (including the future systemd developers) to
> contribute and improve upstart.
> Another reason why upstart has always been considered "weird" is its 
> upside down dependency tree, which is considered ilogic by many and 
> leads to many "interesting" problems. For details you should probably 
> read the Technical Committee debate (yes, all of it).

The preceding two paragraphs are your opinion, which I neither agree
nor disagree with. They have little to do with the act of forcing whole
groups of users of distributions to switch away from what, from their
perspective, was already working, into something that, from what I've
read, is a pretty serious violation of the principle of encapsulation.

> > And although his email doesn't talk about user space *applications*
> > getting entangled the init system, I have a feeling he wasn't
> > envisioning rank and file applications requiring parts of the init
> > system.
> And your point is?

The point is that the email you used as "proof" that the current init
systems aren't working never anticipated an entangled monolith that
would have to be conformed to not only by system software, but by
applications. Your "proof" has nothing to do with systemd, and *if*
there were widely suffered problems with the current init systems, the
author of the email never said we needed to erect a monolith as the
cure, which just might be worse than the disease.

> Kind regards,

With kindness like this, I don't ever want to see you in a hostile mood.


Steve Litt                *  http://www.troubleshooters.com/
Troubleshooting Training  *  Human Performance

Reply to: