4 ms·
I think it's possible that you just hold a non-majority opinion about what good usability looks like. That's fine, and I'm OK with a world where we disagree ab
by akerl_ 2y ago
I think it's possible that you just hold a non-majority opinion about what good usability looks like.
That's fine, and I'm OK with a world where we disagree about how usable systemd is, but I interact with the systemd config files and symlinks and logs pretty frequently, and have found them to be orders of magnitude more usable and understandable than /etc/rc#.d and /etc/init.d and "I wonder if this system puts sshd logs in /var/log/auth.log or /var/log/secure or somewhere else". Notably, I interact with a mix of Arch and Ubuntu and RHEL systems over the course of a week, and systemd means I can engage with all of the above using the same methodology.
In terms of creep... busybox is noteworthy for packing all of a system into a single binary. systemd doesn't do this. Their resolver and time daemon and networking and all the other bits and bobs are their own separate binary, and you aren't required to use them.
- m463 2y agoIt is possible I haven't communicated the gist of the idea. systemd is functional. It does the things you say. It unifies things, including config files and log files. It works for you. I just don't think the way it did this is that elegant. My busybox analogy should be more viewed as: what if arch/ubuntu/rh decided that busybox would replace all coreutils, etc on their systems today? All the same commands. Still usable. But something is missing...
- _nalply 2y agoWhat is missing? I have the feeling that you are mourning the old, bad days?