Hi Nelson, On Wednesday 08 February 2012 at 13:23, you wrote:
2012/2/7 Ruediger Meier
: On Tuesday 07 February 2012, Hubert Mantel wrote:
Dear god,
On Tue, Feb 07, Cristian Rodríguez wrote:
On 06/02/12 21:45, Brian K. White wrote:
Tech problem 1: A system based on scripts is infinitely more flexible, transparent, debugable, than a system based on a binary compiled c program. That has uncountable value and I want that. And bonus, we already have it. Why throw it away?
sysvinit is also a binary compiled C program.
Great, irrefutable argument.
Applause... Bash is also written in C. A script is still no C program. The point was that systemd does a lot more magic that just executing scripts (or well known binaries). Inflexible, intransparent, hard to debug for the enduser.
This depends on what you dub as 'enduser'. A real enduser has no SysV init knowledge to debug, not even about shell scripting, while a traditional linux user __might__ have. So it also isn't much of an argument.
Yep it depends. But my understanding is that admins and developers are also endusers and IMO the most important ones we should care about. Beside developing I'm also doing the admin job here for all our other "real" endusers (all developers and long time unix users). To make them happy with the distro I have to be happy first. BTW we don't have any machine here which would be rebooted in other cases than distro or kernel updates. Services and system states are monitored by nagios more reliable than systemd ever could. So having systemd would give us exactly zero improvements but very high risk of broken systems. After having seen that systemd drama in 12.1 (for god's sake only on test systems) I would never even try it again before next 1-2 years. cu, Rudi -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org