On Tue, 26 Jan 2016, Peter Duffy wrote:> No one is saying that sysvinit is perfect. What I can't grasp is why > replace it with something which is no less imperfect, and is almost > certainly worse in at least some respects - and to make that replacement > unavoidable and mandatory.Distros weighed up the advantages and disadvantages, and made a decision as to what they thought was best. They even shared their reasoning.> I'm also still trying to figure out in what way systemd is supposed to > be "better".https://wiki.debian.org/Debate/initsystem/systemd#Why_Debian_should_default_to_systemd jh
On Tue, 2016-01-26 at 11:57 +0000, John Hodrien wrote:> On Tue, 26 Jan 2016, Peter Duffy wrote: > > https://wiki.debian.org/Debate/initsystem/systemd#Why_Debian_should_default_to_systemd >Might be more convincing if they stuck to reasoned argument, rather than propaganda. "Systemd is straightforward"; "systemd is incredibly fast (1 second to boot)" - reminds me of first installing windows 95 (by the choice of my then employer, not me!) and seeing the message that it would completely change the way I related to my computer.
> -----Original Message----- > From: centos-bounces at centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces at centos.org] On > Behalf Of Peter Duffy > Sent: den 26 januari 2016 13:16 > To: centos at centos.org > Subject: Re: [CentOS] Just need to vent > > reminds me of first installing windows 95 (by the > choice of my then employer, not me!) and seeing the message that it > would completely change the way I related to my computer.But it did! I got really fast in shuffling those 3,5" install-diskettes every time the OS puked and trashed the filesystem necessitating a reinstall. 8-) -- //Sorin
On Tue, 26 Jan 2016, Peter Duffy wrote:> On Tue, 2016-01-26 at 11:57 +0000, John Hodrien wrote: >> On Tue, 26 Jan 2016, Peter Duffy wrote: >> >> https://wiki.debian.org/Debate/initsystem/systemd#Why_Debian_should_default_to_systemd > > Might be more convincing if they stuck to reasoned argument, rather than > propaganda. "Systemd is straightforward"; "systemd is incredibly fast (1 > second to boot)" - reminds me of first installing windows 95 (by the choice > of my then employer, not me!) and seeing the message that it would > completely change the way I related to my computer.Skip on by to the functionality arguments. jh
>> I'm also still trying to figure out in what way systemd is supposed to >> be "better". > > https://wiki.debian.org/Debate/initsystem/systemd#Why_Debian_should_default_to_systemd >Counter-arguments are easy to find as well. For example : http://judecnelson.blogspot.fr/2014/09/systemd-biggest-fallacies.html Sylvain. Pensez ENVIRONNEMENT : n'imprimer que si ncessaire
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 02:21:40PM +0100, Sylvain CANOINE wrote:> > >> I'm also still trying to figure out in what way systemd is supposed to > >> be "better". > > > > https://wiki.debian.org/Debate/initsystem/systemd#Why_Debian_should_default_to_systemd > > > Counter-arguments are easy to find as well. For example : > http://judecnelson.blogspot.fr/2014/09/systemd-biggest-fallacies.htmlI've seen these counter-arguments. It's not really a direct response to Debian's arguments. Its just a list of "fallacies" used to support systemd. I agree that some arguments pro-systemd are poor arguments, but many of the technical arguments anti-systemd seem to boil down to: "You can do this will SysVinit/xinetd/something else. Its just that nobody has done that yet" or "SysVinit can do this if we just fix all the init scripts." I agree that it is possible, but years of trying have never managed to do it. For what its worth, I've already seen one vendor (to be left unnamed) provide AWFUL systemd service units that seem to prove Douglas Adams famous quote: "...a common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools." -- Jonathan Billings <billings at negate.org>