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
But some stuff *is* a lot easier to maintain with
systemd. There's no
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
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.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner(a)opensuse.org