3 ms·

You obviously missed the point, even when identifying the incongruities of your assessment. Inspite of that, ANYTHING is better than systemd. edit: Having som

You obviously missed the point, even when identifying the incongruities of your assessment. Inspite of that, ANYTHING is better than systemd. edit: Having something like LLVM as a first class daemon, compared to something like systemd is not even comparable. It's like... evolution. systemd is like taking corporate backwash and trying to clean a pristine pond.

coldtea 10y ago
>Inspite of that, ANYTHING is better than systemd. Not really. It's a great replacement for the mess of init scripts and ad-hoc solutions in traditional unix, and it was an informed decision after many years of deliberations for most distros to adopt it. Besides this is zero content. >Having something like LLVM as a first class daemon, compared to something like systemd is not even comparable. It's like... evolution. systemd is like taking corporate backwash and trying to clean a pristine pond. You keep using this word LLVM. I'm not sure it means what you think it means. Systemd is not a compiler, it's a system for managing system services and processes. LLVM is just a set backend libraries for writing compilers, and a collection of some compilers implemented with them. "Having something like LLVM as a first class daemon" is close to being content free as a statement, especially when that's something's role will be to replace systemd. It's not even wrong, it's meaningless. In the only way the sentence makes sense "LLVM as a deamon", would be a always-running compiler/server that you pass your programs to it, instead of invoking LLVM as a command line app.
- abysmallyideal 10y ago
  LLVM is obviously not a daemon which is why having it as a daemon would be one point. Even that would have been more flexible, simple, and far less invasive and corruptive. There was no mess of init scripts. The only mess introduced was through poor integration practices through the introduction of corporate induced timelines and requirements, who then introduced an even worse solution.
  - xj9 10y ago
    I agree that we can do better than systemd, but what do you think LLVM does? How would it even fit into that role. Let's be specific, I want to understand where you are coming from.
    - jakub_h 10y ago
      Perhaps something related to continuous optimization? I think Oberon experimented with that.
    - startling 10y ago
      I'm confused about this too. Maybe they believe systemd was adopted for performance, and JITing bash would mitigate performance concerns? I really doubt that run-once startup scripts would benefit from JITing, though. And memory overhead might be a non-starter.

coldtea 10y ago

>Inspite of that, ANYTHING is better than systemd. Not really. It's a great replacement for the mess of init scripts and ad-hoc solutions in traditional unix, and it was an informed decision after many years of deliberations for most distros to adopt it. Besides this is zero content. >Having something like LLVM as a first class daemon, compared to something like systemd is not even comparable. It's like... evolution. systemd is like taking corporate backwash and trying to clean a pristine pond. You keep using this word LLVM. I'm not sure it means what you think it means. Systemd is not a compiler, it's a system for managing system services and processes. LLVM is just a set backend libraries for writing compilers, and a collection of some compilers implemented with them. "Having something like LLVM as a first class daemon" is close to being content free as a statement, especially when that's something's role will be to replace systemd. It's not even wrong, it's meaningless. In the only way the sentence makes sense "LLVM as a deamon", would be a always-running compiler/server that you pass your programs to it, instead of invoking LLVM as a command line app.

abysmallyideal 10y ago
LLVM is obviously not a daemon which is why having it as a daemon would be one point. Even that would have been more flexible, simple, and far less invasive and corruptive. There was no mess of init scripts. The only mess introduced was through poor integration practices through the introduction of corporate induced timelines and requirements, who then introduced an even worse solution.
- xj9 10y ago
  I agree that we can do better than systemd, but what do you think LLVM does? How would it even fit into that role. Let's be specific, I want to understand where you are coming from.
  - jakub_h 10y ago
    Perhaps something related to continuous optimization? I think Oberon experimented with that.
  - startling 10y ago
    I'm confused about this too. Maybe they believe systemd was adopted for performance, and JITing bash would mitigate performance concerns? I really doubt that run-once startup scripts would benefit from JITing, though. And memory overhead might be a non-starter.