5 ms·

Avoiding the systemd thing here too, bsd for the win. Plenty has been said about it and some will never understand what is wrong with it.

by wila 11y ago

gkya 11y ago
Would you mind downvoting this chris_wot's comments on this thread? I can't because they're replies to me. He's basically spamming, asking for info given in the toplevel post. IDK if such request complies with HN Guidelines but I can't be bothered to collect whatever amount of karma needed to flag/downvote a spammer, sorry. Edit: I can't down vote him because the blinking arrow does not appear on replies to me (I have 990 karma, maybe not enough) or else I'd do it myself.
- chris_wot 11y ago
  Do what you will in terms of voting. I don't enjoy being downvoted, and sometimes I even get upset by it, but there are many views on votes and people must use their best judgement so I respect it if they feel it is a fair judgement. I appear to have upset you, and I recognise that I may have been too forceful on this subject. In my defence, I've had some very informative but uncompromising arguments on this matter with vezzny-ford and I have come out far more informed and enlightened as a result. I assumed this was the case here also - I've tried to stick to the technology itself, and don't have any ill will towards you as a person but I can understand if my manner may have given that impression. So I do apologise for anything I have said or done to make you upset with me. In terms of the substance of your comment, you said that you would need to patch udev if you swap out systemd with System V init - but this isn't the case. In a previous comment on another article, you said Gentoo patched udev which seems to have been the basis for your claim. If that's not the case, then I have probably not understood your reasoning. However, if this is the basis for your assumption then I think it's worthwhile pointing out that Gentoo say they forked udev "to avoid glibc-specific functions and gcc-specific constructs by sticking to C99 while tracking closely the systemd-udev development". [1] 1. https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Eudev https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Eudev
  - wila 10y ago
    > been too forceful on this subject I also read your replies in the post about devuan. Had the feeling half the posts where yours :) so you are a tad bit evangelic on the subject. The thing is that devuan is about a debian without systemd and there you came out defending systemd. Not exactly the best spot to do so, I'd say. If anything, then devuan points out how difficult it was to get a current version of debian "systemd free" in this day and age. Systemd made me look at BSD again, so quite happy with systemd, but for other reasons as you.
    - chris_wot 10y ago
      I've never been critical of devuan, only what I consider unfounded accusations against systemd. But yeah, I probably went a bit overboard! Would have been better if I had written a blog post I guess. If someone chooses SysV init, I'm not at all concerned, it's a different way of running a system and very effective. I was very happy with it over the years! My main issues are the following oft repeated claims: 1. systemd is monolithic and breaks the Unix philosophy of do one thing and do it well. It's not modular. 2. systemd is hard to configure 3. systemd breaks logging and forces the sysadmin to use binary formats 4. systemd uses binary configurations/is a binary blob/is undocumented 5. systemd has 70 binaries, each horribly intertwined As an example, I read a post the other day that stated that the binary log file format is deliberately undocumented [1], but the format has been documented since at least 2013... [2] The amount of misconceptions and wilful mischaracterisations if systemd really rankles me. There are issues, like some of the library linkages aren't great, but the objections given against systemd are normally technically incorrect and often what is written is so bile laden that if you took out the opinion the material would leave a paragraph worth of material... Which is why, IMO, when Debian used their robust processes to technically decide on moving to systemd it was chosen on technical grounds and not religious ones. Which tends to prove, at least in my mind, that Debian remains a very strong project :-) 1. http://lpar.ath0.com/2014/05/18/why-i-dont-like-systemd/ http://lpar.ath0.com/2014/05/18/why-i-dont-like-systemd/ 2. https://secure.freedesktop.org/cgit/www/commit/Software/systemd/journal-files.mdwn?id=3f6894419fb73f09ec0ed7524e352de08e71ec0d https://secure.freedesktop.org/cgit/www/commit/Software/syst...
- dang 10y ago
  > Would you mind downvoting this chris_wot's comments on this thread? That's an abusive thing to post. Please don't do that here.

Avoiding the systemd thing here too, bsd for the win. Plenty has been said about it and some will never understand what is wrong with it.

by wila 11y ago

Avoiding the systemd thing here too, bsd for the win. Plenty has been said about it and some will never understand what is wrong with it.

gkya 11y ago

Would you mind downvoting this chris_wot's comments on this thread? I can't because they're replies to me. He's basically spamming, asking for info given in the toplevel post. IDK if such request complies with HN Guidelines but I can't be bothered to collect whatever amount of karma needed to flag/downvote a spammer, sorry. Edit: I can't down vote him because the blinking arrow does not appear on replies to me (I have 990 karma, maybe not enough) or else I'd do it myself.

chris_wot 11y ago
Do what you will in terms of voting. I don't enjoy being downvoted, and sometimes I even get upset by it, but there are many views on votes and people must use their best judgement so I respect it if they feel it is a fair judgement. I appear to have upset you, and I recognise that I may have been too forceful on this subject. In my defence, I've had some very informative but uncompromising arguments on this matter with vezzny-ford and I have come out far more informed and enlightened as a result. I assumed this was the case here also - I've tried to stick to the technology itself, and don't have any ill will towards you as a person but I can understand if my manner may have given that impression. So I do apologise for anything I have said or done to make you upset with me. In terms of the substance of your comment, you said that you would need to patch udev if you swap out systemd with System V init - but this isn't the case. In a previous comment on another article, you said Gentoo patched udev which seems to have been the basis for your claim. If that's not the case, then I have probably not understood your reasoning. However, if this is the basis for your assumption then I think it's worthwhile pointing out that Gentoo say they forked udev "to avoid glibc-specific functions and gcc-specific constructs by sticking to C99 while tracking closely the systemd-udev development". [1] 1. https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Eudev https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Eudev
- wila 10y ago
  > been too forceful on this subject I also read your replies in the post about devuan. Had the feeling half the posts where yours :) so you are a tad bit evangelic on the subject. The thing is that devuan is about a debian without systemd and there you came out defending systemd. Not exactly the best spot to do so, I'd say. If anything, then devuan points out how difficult it was to get a current version of debian "systemd free" in this day and age. Systemd made me look at BSD again, so quite happy with systemd, but for other reasons as you.
  - chris_wot 10y ago
    I've never been critical of devuan, only what I consider unfounded accusations against systemd. But yeah, I probably went a bit overboard! Would have been better if I had written a blog post I guess. If someone chooses SysV init, I'm not at all concerned, it's a different way of running a system and very effective. I was very happy with it over the years! My main issues are the following oft repeated claims: 1. systemd is monolithic and breaks the Unix philosophy of do one thing and do it well. It's not modular. 2. systemd is hard to configure 3. systemd breaks logging and forces the sysadmin to use binary formats 4. systemd uses binary configurations/is a binary blob/is undocumented 5. systemd has 70 binaries, each horribly intertwined As an example, I read a post the other day that stated that the binary log file format is deliberately undocumented [1], but the format has been documented since at least 2013... [2] The amount of misconceptions and wilful mischaracterisations if systemd really rankles me. There are issues, like some of the library linkages aren't great, but the objections given against systemd are normally technically incorrect and often what is written is so bile laden that if you took out the opinion the material would leave a paragraph worth of material... Which is why, IMO, when Debian used their robust processes to technically decide on moving to systemd it was chosen on technical grounds and not religious ones. Which tends to prove, at least in my mind, that Debian remains a very strong project :-) 1. http://lpar.ath0.com/2014/05/18/why-i-dont-like-systemd/ http://lpar.ath0.com/2014/05/18/why-i-dont-like-systemd/ 2. https://secure.freedesktop.org/cgit/www/commit/Software/systemd/journal-files.mdwn?id=3f6894419fb73f09ec0ed7524e352de08e71ec0d https://secure.freedesktop.org/cgit/www/commit/Software/syst...
dang 10y ago
> Would you mind downvoting this chris_wot's comments on this thread? That's an abusive thing to post. Please don't do that here.