> On Sun, 2014-06-01 at 16:13 -0400, Dirk Gently wrote:
>> Linda Walsh wrote:
>>> Felix Miata wrote:
>>>> WRT openSUSE: The fence is down. The barn is empty. For all practical
>>>> purposes the herd has been lost. If you don't want a system dependent
>>>> on systemd...
>>> Well, that's until it goes a bit too far.
>>> Remember, it's just something to help help your system boot faster by
>>> doing parallel boot. And now? Seems like it fell a bit short of that
>>> initial goal, as well. If you already booted direct from HD and used
>>> parallel boot in the run scripts, there seems to be a slowdown. What
>>> I don't understand is why people keep converting more to systemd, when
>>> it didn't make good on its initial promises.
>> More importantly, shaving a couple of seconds off of boot time is
>> really sooooper-dooooper important, why, exactly?
>> Systemd is doing the equivalent of fouling up the reliability of all the
>> critical control systems of an automobile, all for the stated goal of
>> gettin the engine to start in 3 seconds rather than 4.
>> The rsultant calamities would wind up in court as criminal malfeasance.
>> Nobody has yet explained WHY saving a couple of seconds at boot time
>> is ooh soooo important (And I remember the days when unix systems with only
>> 1 MB of memory took 15 minutes to boot up) that it justifies fucking up the
>> entire concept of run-levels, and using well-debugged shell-scripts rather than
>> some pulled-out-of-the-ass custom scripting language which is NOT anywhere
>> close to fully debugged, and config files full of XML crud.
>> I think we both agree that the net effect of the trade-offs is not beneficial to users or system
>> administrators, but it sure does stroke the ego of Lennert Poettering and Kay Sievert. There's
>> going to be a special place in hell for those two.
> Well then, if we are compromising system stability for such a negotiable
> benefit, how do we turn the situation around?
> Or is it full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes.
Unlike Farrugut's order at the Battle of Mobile Bay, going full-speed ahead is not going to achieve
any useful objectives, yet the dangers of systemd are still there.
For one, systemd is making APPLICATIONS now dependant on the systemd API, which means when even the
biggest fanboys here, at Redhat, and other distributions finally are forced to admit that systemd is
a crock of shit.... we won't be able to remove it.... in other words, unlike Farragut, the
probability of eventually being blown out of the water by a systemd torpedo is 100%.
SysV init has problems, but without a doubt, it does NOT present itself as being a massive security
hole, nor present the risk of making a system unbootable.
> Cheers, Mark
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe(a)opensuse.org
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner(a)opensuse.org