Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (982 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse] Getting rid of systemd and putting sysv back
Doug wrote:
On 09/24/2014 10:39 AM, Ruben Safir wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 08:40:17AM -0400, Anton Aylward wrote:

/snip/


You can not trust 'engineers' with the decision making power over your
system because they tend to have fundementally flawed views of what is
and is not acceptable use and design for technology. The use and
implementation of technology is, as a fact, a social and political
question, and not a technological one. Never the less, despite rants to
the contrary, a huge number of individuals didn't wake up on a Tuesday
morning and just decide to "attack" the project of systemd. There is
REAL cause for rejecting systemd. But the number one reason is that,
aside from it being un-unix like, for whatever that is, but it is a huge
POWER GRAB. A large number of well understood and well working tools
have been absorbed in one fell swoop by systemd. Now that might be fine
is say, postwar soviet East Germany, for my GNU system in NYC, I don't
like it and I really don't like needing to needlessly relearn the root
of the system to wrap it around this huge white elephant.

That being said, I didn't ask this question to debate the merits of
systemd, as few as there are. I'm not interested in systemd any more
than I'm interested in Aqua, or Internet Explore and .Net. I've already
made my decision about the merits and lack of merits of the program and
I would like to remove it from my system, if I can.

Ruben

/snip/

I wonder why more of those who are making a big fuss about "A large number of
well understood and well working tools have been absorbed in one fell swoop
by systemd" are not looking into the proposed uselessd?

Personally ... for me, I never heard of uselessd before today.

From what I've read so far, it's not perfect, but it's a FAR better
solution than full-blown systemD.

My biggest problem with systemd is NOT that it replaces init... but that
it replaces init AND absorbs dozens of other deamons.

Why the fuck is MOUNT not run at startup, but instead, by some some code inside
systemD?
there is absolutely NOTHING about mount that was broken...bot Sievert &
Poettering
think that systemd needs to mount fileysstems with THEIR CODE, not the existing
mount command.

Biggest case of "Not Invented Here" syndrome I've ever fucking seen...

And wherever you find NIH syndrome, you find out-of-control Narcissistic
Personality Disorder.

Talk about fails at playing well with others...that's SystemD.


I am not a programmer, but I think I understand the line I just quoted, and I
think I understand the general thesis of uselessd, which is to solve that
problem,
while keeping such merits as systemd has. It would seem to me to be a

SystemD doesn't have nearly as many merits as advertised.

read these pages:
http://ewontfix.com/14
http://ewontfix.com/15

reasonable approach, and a compromise that even the staunchest supporters of
the present systemd might be willing to accept, when it becomes more fully
developed.

If Uselessd is adopted, then "more fully developed" systemd will never be
needed,
which is why systemd supporters will yell and scream about it, and fight it
tooth and nail.

I would hope that those reading here who are programmers/developers would
look into uselessd and assist in its finalization.

--doug


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

< Previous Next >
This Thread