5 ms·

I mean, it's not that I'm going to rain on your parade if you want to use systemd. But by and large most systemd proponents seem to scantly have any idea why th

I mean, it's not that I'm going to rain on your parade if you want to use systemd. But by and large most systemd proponents seem to scantly have any idea why they like it beyond parroting misconceptions and half-truths, much as many critics aren't sure why they hate it.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  I'd take it you've actually studied the Unit object, the internal graph engine, the transaction manager, the seven different job queuing modes, the contextual relationships between services, jobs and units, the semantics of the dependency and relationship model, how execution state is composed, etc.? Those are seldom talked about, but are some of the primary reasons I object to systemd. Are you neutral on those aspects, or do you see them as definitively positive?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - mercurial 11y ago
    Not having looked at the internals of systemd, I'll take your word for it. The question is, is it possible to offer a similar feature set with a simpler model?
    - digi_owl 11y ago
      At this point in time that is like asking of someone can support MS Office using simpler tools. That in turn invoke the old chestnut about how 99% of MS Office users use 1% of its features, but each use a different 1%.
- simoncion 11y ago
  > ...you are implying he doesn't know what he's talking about... It's good to first be charitable when attempting to divine a conversation partner's motives. If you go back and read more of what vezzy-fnord has said in the past, you'll find that he doesn't really rely on innuendo, and has no qualms with addressing false, misleading, or incorrect statements head-on. So, when he says: > But by and large most systemd proponents seem to scantly have any idea why they like it beyond parroting misconceptions and half-truths, much as many critics aren't sure why they hate it. he is stating the entirety of his observations, rather than slyly implying that his conversation partner doesn't know what he's talking about.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
I'd take it you've actually studied the Unit object, the internal graph engine, the transaction manager, the seven different job queuing modes, the contextual relationships between services, jobs and units, the semantics of the dependency and relationship model, how execution state is composed, etc.? Those are seldom talked about, but are some of the primary reasons I object to systemd. Are you neutral on those aspects, or do you see them as definitively positive?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- mercurial 11y ago
  Not having looked at the internals of systemd, I'll take your word for it. The question is, is it possible to offer a similar feature set with a simpler model?
  - digi_owl 11y ago
    At this point in time that is like asking of someone can support MS Office using simpler tools. That in turn invoke the old chestnut about how 99% of MS Office users use 1% of its features, but each use a different 1%.
simoncion 11y ago
> ...you are implying he doesn't know what he's talking about... It's good to first be charitable when attempting to divine a conversation partner's motives. If you go back and read more of what vezzy-fnord has said in the past, you'll find that he doesn't really rely on innuendo, and has no qualms with addressing false, misleading, or incorrect statements head-on. So, when he says: > But by and large most systemd proponents seem to scantly have any idea why they like it beyond parroting misconceptions and half-truths, much as many critics aren't sure why they hate it. he is stating the entirety of his observations, rather than slyly implying that his conversation partner doesn't know what he's talking about.