4 ms·

And that is exactly the marketing card that have been played. The dev out numbers the sysadmin and ask for SystemD. Then it's to the sysadmin to live with the n

by ldng 7y ago

And that is exactly the marketing card that have been played. The dev out numbers the sysadmin and ask for SystemD. Then it's to the sysadmin to live with the numerous bugs and non-standard and hardly documented ways of the Beast.

ses1984 7y ago
Honestly there have been zero angry sysadmins in the picture. Actually very few if any sysadmins in the picture since 2016. Anything I touch that requires sysadmins is outsourced one way or another, either via managed services like rds or in house dbas. If aws or in house dbas have strong opinions about systemd it doesn't impact me.
- delfinom 7y ago
  Yea, sysadmin is a shrinking job field. Dev ops is eating heavily with what they used to do with config driven management of servers be it kubernetes, docker, terraform, puppet, etc.
  - ldng 7y ago
    Some one is administering the system. Whatever its title. The grip I hear from those who _do_ (and I agree with them) administer SystemD servers (note I did not say desktop here) is that when it fails, it is often very hard to debug because of too much implicit and hardly documented.
    - ses1984 7y ago
      "the system" is shrinking. Our ci/cd, logging, monitoring, and alerting infrastructure is outsourced, our databases our outsourced, and our apps are deployed on stateless vms, a couple steps away from a managed container platform as a service. The only reason we aren't all in on container platform as a service, is because we support clients who deploy on vms.
znpy 7y ago
> non-standard I mean, this is a laughable point. Like, seriously ? Before systemd every branch of the linux distro tree had its own way of managing stuff at startup, and distros in the same subtreee made things different enough that things like inits-cripts were not portable. Heck, even with the same init system, some distros arranged runlevels differently. Do people even remember runlevel? Those were another complete way of mess things up. Are you really playing the "non standard" card? Like, for real? And seriously, what would be the standard? The Single Unix Specification? According to that spec even bash is not standard, and yet it's the de-facto standard for shell scripts across basically all the major distributions.

by ldng 7y ago

ses1984 7y ago

Honestly there have been zero angry sysadmins in the picture. Actually very few if any sysadmins in the picture since 2016. Anything I touch that requires sysadmins is outsourced one way or another, either via managed services like rds or in house dbas. If aws or in house dbas have strong opinions about systemd it doesn't impact me.

delfinom 7y ago
Yea, sysadmin is a shrinking job field. Dev ops is eating heavily with what they used to do with config driven management of servers be it kubernetes, docker, terraform, puppet, etc.
- ldng 7y ago
  Some one is administering the system. Whatever its title. The grip I hear from those who _do_ (and I agree with them) administer SystemD servers (note I did not say desktop here) is that when it fails, it is often very hard to debug because of too much implicit and hardly documented.
  - ses1984 7y ago
    "the system" is shrinking. Our ci/cd, logging, monitoring, and alerting infrastructure is outsourced, our databases our outsourced, and our apps are deployed on stateless vms, a couple steps away from a managed container platform as a service. The only reason we aren't all in on container platform as a service, is because we support clients who deploy on vms.

znpy 7y ago

> non-standard I mean, this is a laughable point. Like, seriously ? Before systemd every branch of the linux distro tree had its own way of managing stuff at startup, and distros in the same subtreee made things different enough that things like inits-cripts were not portable. Heck, even with the same init system, some distros arranged runlevels differently. Do people even remember runlevel? Those were another complete way of mess things up. Are you really playing the "non standard" card? Like, for real? And seriously, what would be the standard? The Single Unix Specification? According to that spec even bash is not standard, and yet it's the de-facto standard for shell scripts across basically all the major distributions.