Re: Choose your side on the Linux divide

[lee <lee@yun.yagibdah.de>]

Martin Read <zen75502@zen.co.uk> writes:

> On 31/08/14 14:21, lee wrote:
>> It doesn't even have decent documentation
>
> Opinions appear to vary on this matter; ISTR that when the TC were
> called upon to decide on the default init system for jessie, Russ
> Allbery experimented with all three of the proposed replacements and
> found systemd to be the best-documented out of sysvinit, upstart,
> systemd, and openrc.

When documentation for A and B are worse than the documentation for C,
that doesn't mean that the documentation for C doesn't suck.

One example for outstanding documentation is the documentation of exim.
Is there anything for systemd that would come even remotely close?

>> and makes things that are
>> easily done with sysvinit a very difficult and cumbersome task which
>> requires a lot of trial and error because you can't figure out what it
>> actually does how.
>
> Could you provide a specific example, so that we can see the severity
> and extent of the problem?

run squid-2.7 on Fedora 20, being started and shut down automatically

That was a nightmare to get to work with systemd.  With sysvinit, it
would have been a very simple task.  Ever since I tried, I hate systemd.

Another example is that the devs even refuse to fix the bug with their
misunderstanding of the meaning of "disabled".  When I consider that
they don't even understand what "disabled" means and when I look at the
documentation, I really wonder what kind of awful mess the source code
of systemd might be.

Does anyone know how old these ppl are?


You can also find examples in posts to the Fedora users' mailing list
where ppl have figured out that systemd doesn't start things in the
right order --- which might be more due to the package managers or devs
being confused about things than to some sort of malfunction of systemd.
However, it can be taken as an indication that the confusion and
obfuscation systemd is encumbered with has begun to take its toll on
everyone.

IIRC, some ppl on that list have suspected that once RHEL users find out
that systemd screws up booting their machines big time and starts to
create all kinds of problems Redhat might face a problem they need to
solve.

However, I have unsubscribed from that list because I will have no part
in the Fedora Projects' philosophy of trying to tell ppl what they have
to think.  Besides, I also don't like their extreme disregard of their
users which makes their claim that they want to lead the advancement of
FOSS totally ridiculous at best and otherwise evil.


For another example, see the thread here: "Errors at login : in which
log can I get the message ?"

Why can't systemd use logfiles which I can read?  That it can't already
removes it from my list of usable software because I will need readable
log files as soon as I have to fix a problem.

Some ppl on the Fedora list reported that the system won't even boot
when the binary file systemd uses to write what otherwise would be log
entries to is damaged in some way.  Congratulations to the devs if they
are really that retarded!

Are there any signs that they will fix such problems?

Even when they fix them, systemd still turns the system into a
black-box, and it may be time to find an alternative to Linux which is
reliable.  Perhaps I need to start looking at FreeBSD?  Or at what?


-- 
Knowledge is volatile and fluid.  Software is power.