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> /r
> 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?
>
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.
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.
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. 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.
So whether stuff works with systemd isn't the main problem, it's just
icing on the cake when it *doesn't* work.