ianseeks wrote:
On Monday 29 Sep 2014 19:20:58 Dirk Gently wrote:
ianseeks wrote:
On Sunday 28 Sep 2014 21:28:09 Dirk Gently wrote:
Anton Aylward wrote:
On 09/28/2014 03:20 PM, David Haller wrote:
On Sun, 28 Sep 2014, Anton Aylward wrote: > Such a fundamental gaff! > ^^^^
A what?
A gaff is a hook, or a tool for pulling something in
In this context is the the root page of the articles on systemd: http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/
Or to put it another way, such a basic URL for pulling in all the discussion on systemd that easily refutes all that aaron-as-dirk is saying, if he'd bothered to read it. That page has 'hooks', references.
Of course a pile more could be refuted by actually reading the code, but that takes a modicum of understanding of C. Gaffs-as-hooks are used at Sea as well.
Of course you could also accuse me of making a pun-as-typo: the term 'gaffe', that is a hook with a 'e' hooked on the end, means a 'blunder'. Yes, aaron-as-dirk made a blunder by referring to "SystemD".
Well the best that can be said for aaron-as-dirk is that he takes himself too seriously so would never appreciate such a pun.
The operation of init is self-evident. I never needed to read hundreds upon hundreds of pages of documentation before having a clue how it worked... all I needed to do was read a couple paragraphs on the inittab manpage, and a couple of paragraphs on the init manpage.
With that small bit of knowledge, I can configure any any init-style system (SysVInit, BSD's init, etc) with a minimum amount of fuss.
Trying to configure a systemd system to do something that Sievert & Poeetering didn't anticipate, or worse yet, correct something they've fucked up is, frankly, WORSE than getting four impacted wisdom teeth removed -- and I know, because I've experienced it.
Just because its beyond your understanding, doesn;t mean everyone else is having problems.
Stop with the bullshit. I ROUTINELY work on 4 or more different types of Unix/Linux in a single day....and have done so since 1985.
Ploease give us a VALID reason why an init system should be so fucking complicated that it takes over 200 pages of documentation to explain it.
Please, I would just LOVE to hear the argument that any Init system SHOULD be so complicated that it requires 200 pages of documentation.
So, come on asshole, tell us why needing 200 pages to explain your init system is not only reasonable, but good.
If you can't do that, then act like a civilized adult and concede the point.
you're the one ranting like a child, you wouldn't know what a civilised adult looks or sounds like as you've so often proved.
I'm not the one claiming that ANY piece of software is flawless. You ARE. Asshole.
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org