On Wednesday 28 of December 2011 12:06EN, Claudio Freire wrote:
Well, if you don't read the whole post, yes, I can see how you would answer like that.
I read all of it. I just didn't quote (and comment) the parts I agree with. :-)
But some stuff *is* a lot easier to maintain with systemd. There's no denying.
I learned to dislike tools that make easy and usual tasks easier and any nontrivial or unusual task hard, tricky or even impossible. And unfortunately systemd is exactly this kind of a tool. What makes it even worse is the attitude "We created this scheme what a service should look like and the rest of the world is supposed to conform to this scheme." Simple and nice config files for basic set of "conforming" services are nice to have but not for the price we have to pay with systemd. Not if it means throwing away the flexibility and easy diagnostics of shell scripts.
Point is, systemd *does* introduce some forward features, and the community *is* seeking for a sysvinit replacement. If it will be systemd or a successor I don't know.
I'm not sure. I don't like the motivation of this project. It tries to solve one problem that I don't consider that important (faster boot) and some problems that systemd developers even invented to be able to advocate for it (e.g. socket based dependencies). I'm not opposed to the idea (as such) of replacing System V style init. If there is a project that works at least as well as traditional init does and brings some significant advantages, then why not. This is the way netfilter replaced ipchains, NPTL replaced LinuxThreads or udev took over /dev. But current systemd is not such project and, moreover, it doesn't seem to want to be such project. They just claim that they do it in a different way so it simply must be better. Michal Kubeček -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org