5 ms·

You need to take a few steps back to fully understand the so called systemd controversy. 1) A number major commercial UNIX vendors have moved in the direction

You need to take a few steps back to fully understand the so called systemd controversy. 1) A number major commercial UNIX vendors have moved in the direction dumping the old startup scripts in favor of something more explicit and declarative. This isn't just engineering for engineering's sake, major corporations have customers with needs. Redhat and company are no different. 2) It's incredibly easy to be vocal. What's really lacking is a compelling alternative. The most vocal opposition have made anonymous web sites, have made tons of noise but done very very little in the way of actually solving the problem, many even refuse to acknowledge them. It's really easy to think it's a civil war of sorts but the reality is it's mostly just a very vocal group that are against it, and FWIW, they don't seem to contribute that much. The BSD world has had it's share of these too, it's just a more dramatic fork when you startup OpenBSD project or NetBSD or DragonFly or one of the more minor forks. Openness means you get to see the bad as well as the good, the decision. A very vocal group of folks were crapping on GNOME 3 when it came out, now it's good. If you think systemd was contentious, while I love the idea of unifying configurations, just wait until that debate starts... It's probably not possible to represent all of the different things that the "tower of bable" has without a nightmarish XML schema, if it can be done. I welcome the ideas though, especially if FreeBSD get's serious about mobile and power, there will certainly be some interesting stuff.

digi_owl 12y ago
Explicit, declarative? Sounds nothing like what i have seen so far.
- not_with_retard 12y ago
  You should start with getting your head out of your ass, and actually doing some research, then.
pekk 12y ago
There are already several alternatives to systemd, starting with the systems that systemd is replacing that have worked well for years.
- acdha 12y ago
  That comment sounds like you either don't know what systemd does or are just trolling. If you want to have a constructive conversation, talk about how something which is tedious in e.g. SysV init is better solved by OpenRC/Upstart/launchd/SMF/etc. rather than systemd. (Repeat for any other aspect of interest)
  - FeeTinesAMady 12y ago
    How can he possibly be trolling? He's pointing out that the existing systems work fine and have for years, and that's the full extent of his post. This is why people hate systemd: the hordes of people who do personal attacks on anyone who even disagrees with them. You're doing it right here: anyone who disagrees with you is a troll.
    - acdha 12y ago
      > He's pointing out that the existing systems work fine and have for years, and that's the full extent of his post That was my point: there are well-known limitations to those systems which are the stated reasons for developing systemd in the first place. It's reasonable to disagree about the priorities or the approach which systemd uses but instead pekk instead just pretended that there aren't any unsolved problems. > You're doing it right here: anyone who disagrees with you is a troll Here, try filling in the blanks: “[ ] is hard to do with SysV init. I don't like the way systemd does [ ] because [] and prefer the way [] does [] instead" See the difference?
      - FeeTinesAMady 12y ago
        Just because those are the stated reasons for developing systemd, that doesn't mean that those are the actual reasons, nor does it mean that other init systems don't work (even though they could be improved - into, say, OpenRC). And that definitely doesn't imply that the poster was a troll. You didn't even address that. That is a personal attack, and is typical of how systemd supporters shout down the opposition. > Here, try filling in the blanks: “[ ] is hard to do with SysV init. I don't like the way systemd does [ ] because [] and prefer the way [] does [] instead" > See the difference? So anyone who criticizes systemd and doesn't fill in those blanks is a troll?

digi_owl 12y ago

Explicit, declarative? Sounds nothing like what i have seen so far.

not_with_retard 12y ago
You should start with getting your head out of your ass, and actually doing some research, then.

pekk 12y ago

There are already several alternatives to systemd, starting with the systems that systemd is replacing that have worked well for years.

acdha 12y ago
That comment sounds like you either don't know what systemd does or are just trolling. If you want to have a constructive conversation, talk about how something which is tedious in e.g. SysV init is better solved by OpenRC/Upstart/launchd/SMF/etc. rather than systemd. (Repeat for any other aspect of interest)
- FeeTinesAMady 12y ago
  How can he possibly be trolling? He's pointing out that the existing systems work fine and have for years, and that's the full extent of his post. This is why people hate systemd: the hordes of people who do personal attacks on anyone who even disagrees with them. You're doing it right here: anyone who disagrees with you is a troll.
  - acdha 12y ago
    > He's pointing out that the existing systems work fine and have for years, and that's the full extent of his post That was my point: there are well-known limitations to those systems which are the stated reasons for developing systemd in the first place. It's reasonable to disagree about the priorities or the approach which systemd uses but instead pekk instead just pretended that there aren't any unsolved problems. > You're doing it right here: anyone who disagrees with you is a troll Here, try filling in the blanks: “[ ] is hard to do with SysV init. I don't like the way systemd does [ ] because [] and prefer the way [] does [] instead" See the difference?
    - FeeTinesAMady 12y ago
      Just because those are the stated reasons for developing systemd, that doesn't mean that those are the actual reasons, nor does it mean that other init systems don't work (even though they could be improved - into, say, OpenRC). And that definitely doesn't imply that the poster was a troll. You didn't even address that. That is a personal attack, and is typical of how systemd supporters shout down the opposition. > Here, try filling in the blanks: “[ ] is hard to do with SysV init. I don't like the way systemd does [ ] because [] and prefer the way [] does [] instead" > See the difference? So anyone who criticizes systemd and doesn't fill in those blanks is a troll?