On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 08:28:12PM -0300, Claudio Freire wrote:
On Sun, Aug 10, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Linda Walsh <suse@tlinx.org> wrote:
Damian Ivanov wrote:
I guess we're at a breakpoint here in the discussion. You say people are wrong. I say you are.
--- No, I said his claiming that systemd wasn't monolithic because it was 60 pieces of interlocking software that nothing else could tie into was incorrect. You could disagree with that, but I could add a further comparison with MS's OS being monolithic except where other pieces of software can be inserted as replacements.
The parts that work together and exclude any others are 1 monolithic mass.
That is nothing about people.
I have to agree with Linda (and the archive shows I don't always)
There's a lot of stupid denial around systemd. It's not a good idea to adopt software that is in such a sorry state of development (being in denial of concerns raised by knowledgeable peers is a sorry state).
That said, it was adopted, rolling back is no easy trip, nor a desired one it seems. The state is fixable, the bad design isn't as bad as to not be fixable, and I hope it gets fixed.
Pragmatically, I've had no issues with systemd, except it's complexity. It is complex. People say its .system files are simple, and they are, but their interactions and even the file structure is not. It's not easy to grasp how it all fits together, I honestly feel sysvinit, with all the horrible hacks it had, was simpler to understand. That is fixable. If not with documentation, with experience: as low hanging fruits in transparency are found, and fixed, the system will get easier to handle.
The support I give systemd is, thus: I don't like it, but I'm not intrinsically opposed to the principle, just the terrible implementation, so I hope it gets to the point where I can like it soon. If I could help, I'd help. Maybe when I have the time and find something I can fix, I'll help.
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 7:55 PM, Kyrill Detinov <lazy.kent@opensuse.org> wrote:
I've just found that the systemd package includes 369 files (381 already, while writing this message). I'm shocked. openSUSE applied 300+ patches??? Is systemd good and stable for openSUSE? It seems, NO.
I see, every systemd commit to Factory is ~ +10 patches. What's the hell systemd is good for openSUSE? Looking at Fedora? No Fedora way, please. We are openSUSE.
That's openSUSE supporting systemd through patches. Since systemd is in such a horrible state, openSUSE has to fix tons of stuff, and it has. I've seen the improvement in stability at least in my setups. Those patches will eventually be part of systemd, because openSUSE has folks that persevere in trying to convince their developers of the need for them. I think that must be applauded.
Sorry but this is simply not true. Most of the patches *are* part of the current upstream version! You may have a look into the patch collection and read the git headers. Werner -- Dr. Werner Fink -- Software Engineer Consultant SuSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstrasse 5, Nuernberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 21284 (AG Nuernberg) phone: +49-911-740-53-0, fax: +49-911-3206727, www.opensuse.org ------------------------------------------------------------------ "Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a swimming pool." -- Edward Burr