Re: I'm not a huge fan of systemd
On Sat 19 Jul 2014 at 13:11:47 -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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 <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > They should read the mail 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.
The same users who never griped about sysvinit will switch to the
default init system and not gripe about that either. Ok, there may a
moan or two but most will boot without problems, just as they did when
there were other major changes to Debian.
Please remember that a GR to adjust the TC's decision couldn't even
garner 5 or so supporters in two weeks. That tells us a lot.
> > > 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
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org
> Archive: [🔎] email@example.com">https://lists.debian.org/[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org