Rajko said the following on 09/29/2012 11:45 AM:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2012 08:23:22 -0400 Anton Aylward
wrote: To use systemd effectively you've got to let go of the runlevel concept.
As you explained in your post, it is actually just different naming with greater flexibility in some ways, but also lesser, or even missing functionality in other ways, as it was explained by other people.
No, that's not what I said. Its not just a different naming; any naming similarity is coincidental. Its structurally different. Yes, there is greater functionality. You perception of "lesser, or even missing functionality in other ways" is an artefact of your expectations. Please note: the sysvinit way was not always the way things were done, and when it was introduced it caused its own upheaval. Some of us were there and welcomed it as a rationalization of went before. SystemD is a necessary progression. Such changes have to be revolutionary. *ALL* Sysvinit did was run a series of scripts in linear sequence. They had limited 'awareness' and made no use of the UNIX communication methods between them such as pipes and UNIX Domain sockets. At best, a script could test for the existence or content of a file. There was little error recovery capability. SystemD replaces runLEVELS with what amounts to runSTATES. Yes, you can squint an treat see Sysvinit as some kind of 'state', but as I said it is about linear lists of on/off. SystemD is about trees and dependency graphs; conditions, necessary and sufficient, and much better (though in many cases not yet implemented) error handling *AND* *BRANCHING*. "Not yet implemented"? Well sysvinit as we know it today was not born full fledged like that when it first replaced the haphazard collection of specific scripts.
My complaint is that systemd proponents are too radical and too fast with little, or no understanding, that not everyone has their skills.
My first reaction is "So? What else is new"? Most innovations go though that cycle. Oh wait, there is this... <quote src="http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/88687-it-must-be-remembered-that-there-is-nothing-more-difficult"> “It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institution and merely lukewarm defenders in those who gain by the new ones. ” ― Niccolò Machiavelli </quote>
Programmers are brilliant in juggling unbelievable amounts of symbols, but fall short in understanding that other can't do that for various reasons; no time, no training, brain properties in handling textual information, short and mid term memory, etc.
Everyone, every profession, has their strengths and shortcomings, their brilliant innovators and those who would gainsay them. Some more so than others.
Removing "init {0,1,2,3,5,6}" strings from systemd forces people to do what computers do better, to translate between strings, ie. old and new commands. How helpful is that?
Ah, the "have you stopped beating your wife" style or argument. What does '"init 3" really mean' on the one hand vs 'what does multi-user state' really mean?. The "init 3" seems more "Prestigious Jargon"[1] and Bafflement and less informative than "multi-user mode". Being unfamiliar with something doesn't make it wrong. Some things _are_ the wrong way of doing things, but your arguments are emotive[1]. [1] http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#jargon [2] http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#emotive -- Of all things, good sense is the most fairly distributed: everyone thinks he is so well supplied with it that even those who are the hardest to satisfy in every other respect never desire more of it than they already have. - Rene Descartes (1596-1650), Discours de la Methode (1637) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org