15 ms·

> The point of cgroups integration in systemd I know why systemd uses cgroups. I was addressing the myth that systemd is required to use cgroups. > They are t

by pdkl95 11y ago

> The point of cgroups integration in systemd I know why systemd uses cgroups. I was addressing the myth that systemd is required to use cgroups. > They are to me. That's nice. You should use systemd if its features satisfy your requirements better than the other options. Other people have different requirements. Is this concept difficult to understand? We don't want the same features, for a variety of reasons. Disagreement is fine, but systemd advocates often seem to want a monoculture. > the functionality required to build reliable systems That's your opinion, which you're entitled to. I disagree, as I've never had problems like you're describing. I value stability a very strongly, so I consider the methods that worked fine over the past 20+ years. > requirements That's the framing I was talking about. There is more than one way to design a stable system, and your requirement list is only one of those methods. Some of those requirements I consider misfeatures that cause problems, but it's fine if you disagree. > impossible to meet them Then use systemd or some other solution that solves your needs. Is it so hard to understand that we can choose different software?

vidarh 11y ago
I'm not arguing against your ability to pick something else. What I see, however, in most of the opposition to systemd is that most who criticise it don't understand these design considerations and often aren't even aware of the problems involved. This is why they keep coming up. If most people designed systems that took care of these things in other ways, it wouldn't be so much of an issue. But most people don't. E.g. the fact that most Linux distros for the longest time kept running critical system services straight from init scripts with no process manager or other restart logic is a good example.
- digi_owl 11y ago
  And oddly enough those "services" (or daemons as they used to be called, wonder why that changed) could run for years if not decades without a hitch. But now everything seems to be a case of web monkey balls of yarn that is no better than Windows in staying upright. Its like i can reuse old UF comics, only replace Murky's love for Windows with Ubuntu or some such.

by pdkl95 11y ago

vidarh 11y ago

I'm not arguing against your ability to pick something else. What I see, however, in most of the opposition to systemd is that most who criticise it don't understand these design considerations and often aren't even aware of the problems involved. This is why they keep coming up. If most people designed systems that took care of these things in other ways, it wouldn't be so much of an issue. But most people don't. E.g. the fact that most Linux distros for the longest time kept running critical system services straight from init scripts with no process manager or other restart logic is a good example.

digi_owl 11y ago
And oddly enough those "services" (or daemons as they used to be called, wonder why that changed) could run for years if not decades without a hitch. But now everything seems to be a case of web monkey balls of yarn that is no better than Windows in staying upright. Its like i can reuse old UF comics, only replace Murky's love for Windows with Ubuntu or some such.