Re: Choose your side on the Linux divide
On Thu 28 Aug 2014 at 20:37:41 +0200, Erwan David wrote:
> Le 28/08/2014 16:10, AW a écrit :
> > On Thu, 28 Aug 2014 16:02:02 +0200
> > Bzzzz <lazyvirus@gmx.com> wrote:
> >
> > > As all I stand up for is _freedom_ (of any kind) and as what I hate most
> > > is fundamentalism (of any kind), this thread is terminated for me.
> >
> > AKA. I don't want to take the time to either learn systemd or try my hand at
> > writing excellent sysvinit code... I'd rather just complain instead...
> >
> > You have freedom to choose, if you want to choose. I'm sure there would be
> > takers who would gladly follow, some with cash and code experience. But that
> > takes a strong leader and not a wishy washy complainer.
>
> Or systemd is imposed to me iutterly complex and with no real
> documentation for migration just a bunch of crossreferencing man pages,
> incomplete and without the basic glossary
The technical term for this is "bollocks". The term is used frequently
in Barnsley, where they tend to be down-to-earth in init system matters.
Nothing is stopping you from writing what you call migration documents.
But you would rather join the moaners.
> SysVInit was good for me, worked, I did not see ANY argument except
> "other do this" (in that case why use linux ? far more people use
> windows) or other autority argyuments or mere false facts.
Stick with sysvinit then. It isn't hard. The technique is probably in
the multi-post thread you started.
> I see the OPEN bugs on systemd whose seriousness is kept lower than any
> other package (yes the fact that some machine may NOT boot should be
> considered utterly grave).
>
> I see a completely unfinished software, not even beta quality, with
> messages saying " in version you must do like this, in version n+1 like
> that, but it will change in n+2"
>
> I sere a system that is unable to properly shutdown a system and
> supporters say "it is not important just wait longer, or power off yourself"
>
> I see long time behaviour being changed and systemd fas saying "it is
> just it was bad before". The compatibility is nowhere to be seen
>
> I see developers refusing that their work is used otherwise than tehy
> intend, saying no you mustr also change the logging the system, end soon
> the resolver or other *sytem* things.
>
> I see dependencies to heavy frameworks, which will lead to many small
> machines to be unable to still run linux.
You see a lot of things. A vivid imagination is a wonderful thing.
Reply to: