4 ms·

A bunch of barely working duck-taped Bash scripts? Hardly reasonable.

hnlmorg 16d ago
You’d be surprised just how often systemd calls bash scripts.
kjs3 16d ago
You might have done barely working duck-taped Bash scripts; not eveyone who calls themself a 'system admin' is competent. But actual professionals who ran these systems since the 1970s had carefully written, fully functional scripts and we were quite capable of keeping hundreds and thousands of servers running just fine. Being bad at your job isn't the tools fault.
- IshKebab 16d ago
  All Bash scripts are duck-taped by definition. It's a shitty duck-tape language. > thousands of servers running just fine Err yeah well you might have noticed these things called "laptops" and "desktops". SysVinit was... fine.. on servers. It worked badly on desktops and not really at all on laptops. I'm pretty sure the post introducing SystemD explained it all in detail if you want to learn something.
  - hnlmorg 16d ago
    Bash doesn’t just stop working because the x86 CPU is inside a different form factor. And actually Linux (and BSD too) did used to run on commodity desktop for local ISPs, newsgroups and so on and so forth. That was part of the reason for their success story: Linux and FreeBSD meant smaller Internet-facing business in the late 90s didn’t have to buy expensive mainframe hardware to run Unix software. The issue with Linux on the desktop, and especially the laptop, in the pre-systemd days wasn’t the init system. It was the lack of quality drivers. Now I’m not saying that systemd hasn’t brought improvements over sysv. But to say bash worked badly on laptops but fine on servers is just silly. That’s simply not how the technology works at all. And I don’t need to read some promotional piece from Redhat to know this. I’ve been running Linux on desktops and laptops longer than many adults have been alive. So I’ve lived through these massive ecosystem changes and have a first hand account of life before systemd.
Woodi 16d ago
Total lack of understanding what is happening. There is difference between mandatory one implementation and set of funcionalities. Systemd is monolit with visible parts that provide somewhat modern funcionalities in 'nix world. And there is no serious developers in 'distro' space, except RedHat. And, really, there is no such thing RedHat we have in old Linux days - it was devoured and we just have a label doing corporate propaganda. So when few modern init systems were hatching RH dropped systemd and, as RH is main force in distros development, it gained dominance. And since then thing are getting worse. Eg. cgroups ? systemd first used them and so much hype happened. But is it deserved hype ? No! They implemented cgroups v1 when cgroups v2 was available. And cgroups v2 usage was blocked for years. In systemd too. Do not make mistake of not seeing difference between good and modern functionalities and one codebase with funding that block real development. Edit: formatting*

You’d be surprised just how often systemd calls bash scripts.

kjs3 16d ago

You might have done barely working duck-taped Bash scripts; not eveyone who calls themself a 'system admin' is competent. But actual professionals who ran these systems since the 1970s had carefully written, fully functional scripts and we were quite capable of keeping hundreds and thousands of servers running just fine. Being bad at your job isn't the tools fault.

IshKebab 16d ago
All Bash scripts are duck-taped by definition. It's a shitty duck-tape language. > thousands of servers running just fine Err yeah well you might have noticed these things called "laptops" and "desktops". SysVinit was... fine.. on servers. It worked badly on desktops and not really at all on laptops. I'm pretty sure the post introducing SystemD explained it all in detail if you want to learn something.
- hnlmorg 16d ago
  Bash doesn’t just stop working because the x86 CPU is inside a different form factor. And actually Linux (and BSD too) did used to run on commodity desktop for local ISPs, newsgroups and so on and so forth. That was part of the reason for their success story: Linux and FreeBSD meant smaller Internet-facing business in the late 90s didn’t have to buy expensive mainframe hardware to run Unix software. The issue with Linux on the desktop, and especially the laptop, in the pre-systemd days wasn’t the init system. It was the lack of quality drivers. Now I’m not saying that systemd hasn’t brought improvements over sysv. But to say bash worked badly on laptops but fine on servers is just silly. That’s simply not how the technology works at all. And I don’t need to read some promotional piece from Redhat to know this. I’ve been running Linux on desktops and laptops longer than many adults have been alive. So I’ve lived through these massive ecosystem changes and have a first hand account of life before systemd.

Woodi 16d ago

Total lack of understanding what is happening. There is difference between mandatory one implementation and set of funcionalities. Systemd is monolit with visible parts that provide somewhat modern funcionalities in 'nix world. And there is no serious developers in 'distro' space, except RedHat. And, really, there is no such thing RedHat we have in old Linux days - it was devoured and we just have a label doing corporate propaganda. So when few modern init systems were hatching RH dropped systemd and, as RH is main force in distros development, it gained dominance. And since then thing are getting worse. Eg. cgroups ? systemd first used them and so much hype happened. But is it deserved hype ? No! They implemented cgroups v1 when cgroups v2 was available. And cgroups v2 usage was blocked for years. In systemd too. Do not make mistake of not seeing difference between good and modern functionalities and one codebase with funding that block real development. Edit: formatting*