On Ma, 05 aug 14, 00:05:59, Brian wrote: > On Mon 04 Aug 2014 at 18:28:44 -0400, Steve Litt wrote: > > > On Mon, 4 Aug 2014 14:03:35 +0200 > > Raffaele Morelli <raffaele.morelli@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > I've seen tons of posts sent to this list about systemd... bla bla > > > bla... and did not understand what's the matter with it. > > > > > > I wonder what are you all doing with your init scripts which doesn't > > > work with systemd. So what? > > > > > > /r > > > > I can answer that with two reasons: > > > > 1) Binary log files. If you can't see what a radical departure that is > > from the world of Unix, look again. > > Looked twice. It is a radical departure. Let's not forget text logs are still available since journald is configured to forward everything to your syslog as soon as it's available. In practice I find myself using only journalctl to read logs instead of less/grep/tail/etc. > > 2) Gratuitous interdependency. Part of the Unix Philosophy is that > > programs should "do one thing and do it well." The user assembles a > > functionality from many such small programs. Up to now, init was > > just init. It started the computer, the /dev and /proc stuff, the > > TTY's and the daemons, then pretty much got out of the way. Now here > > comes systemd, requiring or encouraging even desktop environments to > > require or suggest it. > > systemd neither requires nor encourages DEs to use it. It does tempt in > a rather cheeky way, though. So much so that its allure has turned out > to be irresistable to upstream GNOME. Weak-kneeded and impressionable, > the lot of them! I have to add that the world of computing has become much more complex and there's only so much one can do just by combining the traditional small and simple tools of Unix. To perform complex tasks one needs complex tools and booting a Unix-like system hasn't been simple since a long time now. > > Imagine if they replaced grep, cut, cat, diff, awk, sed, head, tail, > > ls, and find with ks (stands for Kitchen Sink). You can do anything > > you want with ks, but you need to know all its options and config > > settings, and its myriad of idiosyncracies. Instead we have to know the different options and config settings for a couple of dozen different tools and deal with all the myriad of idiosyncrasies created by any possible interaction between them. Thanks, but no thanks. > > And if it has bugs or > > departures from documented behavior, as any program of its size is > > likely to have at one time or another, everything breaks. > > Hey, a sparkling idea. We could call the program "busybox" and try to > get it into d-i. Now, would it catch on elsewhere? I was going to say perl :p Kind regards, Andrei -- http://wiki.debian.org/FAQsFromDebianUser Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic http://nuvreauspam.ro/gpg-transition.txt
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature