6 ms·

Why are we talking like this? We’ve been using systemd for over 5 years. It’s weird. Time loops.

boublepop 5y ago
It took 10 years before the “python2 will never die”-crowd finally accepted they where not going to win at that python3 was here to stay. People spend a couple of years getting used to a stack in their early carrier and then spend decades arguing that it should never change.
- kaba0 5y ago
  But python programs are much more complex than init scripts systemd replace. It is more like people hate change and are lazy to learn a new thing.
  - smitty1e 5y ago
    Mamagement has 99 problems. Holding a status quo is about minimizing the backlog more than hating change as such. Even when we can show am improvement in security and usability, and lower training cost because of consistency, it's still another mouth to feed.
    - kaba0 5y ago
      If it provides sufficient benefits (which systemd does), it is a no brainer.
      - smitty1e 5y ago
        As a technical matter, sure. As a business/ management matter, we frequently cannot do the technically obvious thing due to other constraints.
        kaba0 5y ago
        I would agree, but systemd has been around quite some time now. At this point it is technical debt not upgrading to it, unless you use something better.
- a1369209993 5y ago
  > the "[python] will never die"-crowd finally accepted they where not going to win Why are you talking in the past tense? We have done no such thing. Death to python 3; long live python.
  - boublepop 5y ago
    Obviously I don’t mean you don’t exist any more, but the surveys show enough converted that your views on pythons future are no longer relevant in the bigger picture.
- TwoNineFive 5y ago
  The problem with your analogy is that while a lot of people did move from python to python 3, a lot also stopped using python all together because the python2/3 split demonstrated that the python devs were willing to throw everyone's work out the window for fun. There was no technical reason why backwards comparability wasn't possible. Multiple good solutions were put forward. They were all rejected for silly reasons. A lot of that "python2 will never die" crowd left python all together, and they are better off for it because they won't have to deal with the next time python decides to throw everyone's work out the window.
AtlasBarfed 5y ago
I don't have a horse in the systemd vs init.d, I'm a dumb groovy programmer after all. But you are right, adoption is not enthusiastic, which to me is a massive indictment of the design and usability. We'll basically spin wheels until someone gets annoyed with it and does systemd better, or at least more modularized. My complaint? sudo systemctl <verb> <service> means the verb cannot be autocompleted or introspected like sudo service <service> <verb> could be. May be minor, but it's generally my only interaction with systemd versus init.d, and to me they completely blew the only thing I use. Not a good impression. I understand that init.d was a cobbled set of scripts, loose conventions, and even some hacks. But the resistance to system.d is so pervasive it cannot just be stubborn unix neckbeards.
- zlynx 5y ago
  The people who matter, who write init scripts, in other words the distro maintainers, were happy to switch. Why else do you think so many distributions switched? Yes, the resistance is noisy and stubborn Unix neckbeards. Not even Unix, since every other Unix had something similar to systemd already. LINUX neckbeards.

It took 10 years before the “python2 will never die”-crowd finally accepted they where not going to win at that python3 was here to stay. People spend a couple of years getting used to a stack in their early carrier and then spend decades arguing that it should never change.

kaba0 5y ago
But python programs are much more complex than init scripts systemd replace. It is more like people hate change and are lazy to learn a new thing.
- smitty1e 5y ago
  Mamagement has 99 problems. Holding a status quo is about minimizing the backlog more than hating change as such. Even when we can show am improvement in security and usability, and lower training cost because of consistency, it's still another mouth to feed.
  - kaba0 5y ago
    If it provides sufficient benefits (which systemd does), it is a no brainer.
    - smitty1e 5y ago
      As a technical matter, sure. As a business/ management matter, we frequently cannot do the technically obvious thing due to other constraints.
      - kaba0 5y ago
        I would agree, but systemd has been around quite some time now. At this point it is technical debt not upgrading to it, unless you use something better.
a1369209993 5y ago
> the "[python] will never die"-crowd finally accepted they where not going to win Why are you talking in the past tense? We have done no such thing. Death to python 3; long live python.
- boublepop 5y ago
  Obviously I don’t mean you don’t exist any more, but the surveys show enough converted that your views on pythons future are no longer relevant in the bigger picture.
TwoNineFive 5y ago
The problem with your analogy is that while a lot of people did move from python to python 3, a lot also stopped using python all together because the python2/3 split demonstrated that the python devs were willing to throw everyone's work out the window for fun. There was no technical reason why backwards comparability wasn't possible. Multiple good solutions were put forward. They were all rejected for silly reasons. A lot of that "python2 will never die" crowd left python all together, and they are better off for it because they won't have to deal with the next time python decides to throw everyone's work out the window.

AtlasBarfed 5y ago

I don't have a horse in the systemd vs init.d, I'm a dumb groovy programmer after all. But you are right, adoption is not enthusiastic, which to me is a massive indictment of the design and usability. We'll basically spin wheels until someone gets annoyed with it and does systemd better, or at least more modularized. My complaint? sudo systemctl <verb> <service> means the verb cannot be autocompleted or introspected like sudo service <service> <verb> could be. May be minor, but it's generally my only interaction with systemd versus init.d, and to me they completely blew the only thing I use. Not a good impression. I understand that init.d was a cobbled set of scripts, loose conventions, and even some hacks. But the resistance to system.d is so pervasive it cannot just be stubborn unix neckbeards.

zlynx 5y ago
The people who matter, who write init scripts, in other words the distro maintainers, were happy to switch. Why else do you think so many distributions switched? Yes, the resistance is noisy and stubborn Unix neckbeards. Not even Unix, since every other Unix had something similar to systemd already. LINUX neckbeards.