Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (924 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse] chkconfig and systemctl
  • From: Rajko <rmatov101@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 21:58:19 -0500
  • Message-id: <20121002215819.462bcb09@linux-x2kh>
On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 14:22:52 -0400
Anton Aylward <opensuse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

No, that's not what I said.

After reading your post once again, I must admit that you was all about
underscoring differences, skipping any similarity [1]. Somehow I
allowed to ascribe to you my conclusion that despite differences under
the hood, from my perspective as a user targets do the same as
runlevels. Sorry for that.


Its not just a different naming; any naming similarity is
coincidental. Its structurally different.

There is no naming similarity :) and users can't care less about
structural differences.


... You perception of "lesser, or even missing functionality in other
ways" is an artefact of your expectations. ...
Please note: the sysvinit way was not always the way things were done
... "Not yet implemented"? Well sysvinit as we know it today was not
born full fledged like that when it first replaced the haphazard
collection of specific scripts.

It is not my expectation; it is what other tell, including you
by comparing to the sysvinit beginning, but I'm sorry that I mentioned
it. Speaking about missing functionality for software in a development
is like telling that water is wet.


... Such changes have to be revolutionary.

Nature prefers evolution, and it is what happens even with the attempts
to introduce the most disruptive changes we can come up with.

Digest of systemd introduction is:
Hey it is changing a world, runlevel 5 is now graphical.target, 3 is
multi-user.target and so on for each run level. Then a lot more about
sockets, c-groups, fast boot, simple configuration, etc. In essence it
is just about replacing existing startup system with a new one.

I'm missing forward looking statements, like dreaming about
multiple graphical targets used to start certain setup as an
alternative to default that may or may not work?
(Don't start with "we have working setup for above case" as that is
exactly what sysvinit proponents do :)

...



[1] Which reminds me on some C++ training tutorial I was reading long
ago, like "method is not a function"; which is correct, but what user
see is that both give 1+1=2 :)


--
Regards, Rajko.
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >