Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (982 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [Bulk] Re: [opensuse] Getting rid of systemd and putting sysv back
  • From: Dirk Gently <dirk.gently00@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 11:07:43 -0400
  • Message-id: <>
ianseeks wrote:
On Monday 29 Sep 2014 19:20:58 Dirk Gently wrote:
ianseeks wrote:
On Sunday 28 Sep 2014 21:28:09 Dirk Gently wrote:
Anton Aylward wrote:
On 09/28/2014 03:20 PM, David Haller wrote:
On Sun, 28 Sep 2014, Anton Aylward wrote:
Such a fundamental gaff!


A what?

A gaff is a hook, or a tool for pulling something in

In this context is the the root page of the articles on systemd:

Or to put it another way, such a basic URL for pulling in all the
discussion on systemd that easily refutes all that aaron-as-dirk is
saying, if he'd bothered to read it. That page has 'hooks', references.

Of course a pile more could be refuted by actually reading the code, but
that takes a modicum of understanding of C.
Gaffs-as-hooks are used at Sea as well.

Of course you could also accuse me of making a pun-as-typo: the term
'gaffe', that is a hook with a 'e' hooked on the end, means a 'blunder'.
Yes, aaron-as-dirk made a blunder by referring to "SystemD".

Well the best that can be said for aaron-as-dirk is that he takes
himself too seriously so would never appreciate such a pun.

The operation of init is self-evident. I never needed to
read hundreds upon hundreds of pages of documentation before
having a clue how it worked... all I needed to do was read
a couple paragraphs on the inittab manpage, and a couple of
paragraphs on the init manpage.

With that small bit of knowledge, I can configure any any
init-style system (SysVInit, BSD's init, etc) with a minimum
amount of fuss.

Trying to configure a systemd system to do something that
Sievert & Poeetering didn't anticipate, or worse yet, correct
something they've fucked up is, frankly, WORSE than getting
four impacted wisdom teeth removed -- and I know, because I've
experienced it.

Just because its beyond your understanding, doesn;t mean everyone else is
having problems.

Stop with the bullshit. I ROUTINELY work on 4 or more different
types of Unix/Linux in a single day....and have done so since 1985.

Ploease give us a VALID reason why an init system should be so fucking
complicated that it takes over 200 pages of documentation to explain it.

Please, I would just LOVE to hear the argument that any Init system
SHOULD be so complicated that it requires 200 pages of documentation.

So, come on asshole, tell us why needing 200 pages to explain your
init system is not only reasonable, but good.

If you can't do that, then act like a civilized adult and concede the point.

you're the one ranting like a child, you wouldn't know what a civilised adult
looks or sounds like as you've so often proved.

I'm not the one claiming that ANY piece of software is flawless.
You ARE. Asshole.

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

< Previous Next >
This Thread