Damian Ivanov wrote:
I don't know what Anton said, I did.
If we won't be able to remove systemd without major troubles - great, finally a good API around for long time.
NO, Damian, that is the exact OPPOSITE of good. NO application should be dependant upon the init system. NONE EVER. Applications shouldn't even have awareness of the init system. Same of deamons. Yet Systemd is being written so that deamons and some apps MUST call systemd This REMOVES the concept of modularity. And systgemd violates the VERY well time-tested Unix principle of do one thing, and do it well. The init system should start up the system -- by running the appropriate processes to do system configuration, and deamon-starting. Instead, what systemd does is try to configure EVERY FUCKING THING, and then completely takes over dozens of disparate functions (mount, login, system logging, network configuration and traffic, cron...etc, etc.), and rather than rely upon shell scripts (which used the well-tested shells as interpreters), they have gone and invented some new language (with who knows how many bugs)... all written in some incomprehensible xml bullshit.....for no reason that is good for Linux at all. Let me say that again... for no reason that is good for LINUX. Sievert and Poettering may be able to write a lot of code, but, there's a reason Linus cut off Sievert's commit privileges for the kernel -- becauswe rather than fix the fucking bugs in systemd, he was rewriting the kernel to adapt to ignore systemd's bugs. I don't trust ANY coder who insists that other code be adapted to his buggy pile of shit, rather than just debug his own buggy pile of shit. And neither should you if you have even 10% of a brain.
No matter how much you whine about systemd it's there. And it will be. Good :-)
Bull fucking shit. Kay Sievert and Lennert Poettering have no specific plan. They're literally making it up as they go along, gobbling up one daemon after another, which will continue until Linux looks like the retarded pile of crap called Windows. That's not good... it's downright stupid. Asinine, in fact.
2014-06-02 8:26 GMT+02:00 Dirk Gently
: Araluen wrote:
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@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org