Re: End of hypocrisy, beginning of reason
On Tue, 5 Aug 2014 13:05:59 -0400
AW <debian.list.tracker@1024bits.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Aug 2014 12:32:48 -0400
> Steve Litt <slitt@troubleshooters.com> wrote:
>
> >When I switch to systemd, I'd like to have it as isolated as humanly
> >possible, just because I'm a modularity kind of guy.
>
> I've been watching the thread here... and I understand the thought of
> not changing from sysvinit because sysvinit works well [sometimes] ...
>
> But here you've made a point that should lead you directly to use
> systemd over sysvinit... especially Debian styled sysvinit.
[clip section about how systemd works]
> I understand the desire of"K.I.S.S.", but the reality is that sysvinit
> is already massively complex and for all intents and purposes
> is monolithic in nature.
I'm a big fan of KISS, but in this case I'm speaking not of KISS but of
modularity and encapsulation. The less entangled things are, the more
clean test points you have to measure, the more places you can insert
your own little program to do something, and the less dependencies in
your package manager or when ./configure;make;make install.
It's possible to do modular badly, or even complexly, and perhaps that's
what sysvinit has done. That doesn't mean entanglement is better: It
means you need to fix your modular system.
LOL, perhaps I'll boot to bin/bash, and then run a script to do
everything else. Oh wait, I can't do that: I hear PAM now depends on
systemd, for what reason I haven't a clue.
SteveT
Steve Litt * http://www.troubleshooters.com/
Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance
Reply to: