4 ms·
It may be easier for them, but as someone without Cisco experience, systemd was a lot easier for configuring service dependencies once I understood it. It's be
by happymellon 4y ago
It may be easier for them, but as someone without Cisco experience, systemd was a lot easier for configuring service dependencies once I understood it.
It's been 10 years now? I wouldn't go back, most of the suggested alternatives are so basic that troubleshooting becomes a chore. Almost all the hate is because they don't like Lennart.
We should fork it, get someone else to head that with a different name to get them on board.
- asdfkjhasdfhuh 4y agoi also accepted it. And made a point to forget the cisco experience. Yeah, the dependency is a fine feature, but before it was even *easier*... just put a number on the rc.d symlink. c'mon, if you think that is harder than editing a dozen files, remembering weirdly named camelCase attributes and then pointing to randomly named services, then i don't know what to say. But again, i also accepted it, for better or worse. Now, i don't care about lennart, but i hated systemd for most of the time because they pushed an incomplete crap over something that was working, just to get contributors. If redhat wanted their cisco/windows services management clone, they could have worked on it. Doing what they did (i call it to pull a gnome) was just shitty behaviour and they should always be remembered for such action.