8 ms·

> Statement without substance that sounds more like a "feel good" phrase So you're saying Linux didn't advance in the last few years? > Not breaking and being

by op00to 10y ago

> Statement without substance that sounds more like a "feel good" phrase So you're saying Linux didn't advance in the last few years? > Not breaking and being very unstable is a start Statement without substance that sounds more like a "feel bad" phrase > No, it caused more problems than solved Statement without substance that sounds more like a "feel bad" phrase More seriously, show us data that refutes OP's statement instead of simply claiming that it's without value. You do the same thing in your assertions, and it really doesn't drive the discourse forward. I worked with a number of large enterprise customers running Linux at scale, and when the architects opened up to the value of systemd, they universally sang its praises. Out of all these large customers, I've never run into an issue where systemd was the culprit of a significant, P1 style issue. There's a large, silent majority of systemd users who run into no issues at all.

falcolas 10y ago
> So you're saying Linux didn't advance in the last few years? Linux advanced significantly more under sysvinit than systemd, so does this mean sysvinit is superior to systemd? > Not breaking and being very unstable is a start When it works, it works fine. When it breaks, it's very hard to debug. There's plenty of articles out there about this. Even the original article which spawns this talks about the same types of problems - "we have to mask it, not disable it, because <xyz>", or "end users will have to be responsible for masking this service", or "when it was just bash scripts, we didn't have to worry about order". > There's a large, silent majority of systemd users who run into no issues at all. Can be equally said about sysvinit and upstart. Does that mean they are just as good as systemd? My two cents: Developers love systemd; its one more thing they can abstract away and mostly not deal with. People who have to troubleshoot problems with systemd don't feel nearly as charitable towards it.

by op00to 10y ago

falcolas 10y ago

> So you're saying Linux didn't advance in the last few years? Linux advanced significantly more under sysvinit than systemd, so does this mean sysvinit is superior to systemd? > Not breaking and being very unstable is a start When it works, it works fine. When it breaks, it's very hard to debug. There's plenty of articles out there about this. Even the original article which spawns this talks about the same types of problems - "we have to mask it, not disable it, because <xyz>", or "end users will have to be responsible for masking this service", or "when it was just bash scripts, we didn't have to worry about order". > There's a large, silent majority of systemd users who run into no issues at all. Can be equally said about sysvinit and upstart. Does that mean they are just as good as systemd? My two cents: Developers love systemd; its one more thing they can abstract away and mostly not deal with. People who have to troubleshoot problems with systemd don't feel nearly as charitable towards it.