3 ms·
Systemd, invented by the guy you are quoting, is, however, objectively crap. I am about to start a separate, new service and have wide leeway in how it will ru
by patrickg_zill 8y ago
Systemd, invented by the guy you are quoting, is, however, objectively crap.
I am about to start a separate, new service and have wide leeway in how it will run. I am moving away from Linux towards a mix of BSD and Solaris/Illumos. And Systemd played a part in this technical decision.
- scrollaway 8y agoFeels like you might not know the meaning of the word "objectively".
- patrickg_zill 8y agoSystemd breaks fundamental Unix principles. Those principles have been around since the 1990s at the latest. So yes the use of objectively does fit...
- mcguire 8y agoPlease don't argue unceasingly for your preferred course of action when a decision for some other course has already been made. That tends to block the activity's progress.
- scrollaway 8y agoSystemd objectively breaks Unix principles. That makes it subjectively "crap", because in your eyes (not in everybody's, and not in a demonstrated superior or inferior way) that's a bad thing. I'm not too sure what's complicated. And as I was saying to the other poster, calling something "objectively crap" isn't just most of the time wrong, it's almost always inflammatory. "Don't do it" feels like a good rule of thumb here.
- erik_seaberg 8y agosystemd violates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_concerns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_concerns to an extent that ought to be measurable in syscalls and in number of packages that in practice depend on systemd.
- scrollaway 8y agoNone of this makes it "objectively crap". You're arguing design concerns, and your preferred design is not objectively better than systemd's. "Objectively crap" is inflammatory to begin with.
- dang 8y agoPlease let's not have all the flamewars here.