On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 08:43:46AM -0500, Jonathan Billings wrote:> Discuss it all you like. But "constructive criticism" (used earlier) > isn't terribly useful on the CentOS list, because CentOS has very > little control over the implementation of init systems or desktop > environments. I'm probably the 123123th person on the list to say > this, but if you want a hand in the direction CentOS goes, get > involved in Fedora.Definitely. But please don't show up ranting about systemd unless you genuinely have something new and insightful to add. We have literally been discussing moving to an improved init system since 2005: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel at lists.fedoraproject.org/message/Y6PUIY3HOPVKA5IUJQ5TL6WAVTE3G4KY/ and in that decade, pretty much everything to be said _has_ been said and considered. That is, we've *been through* the independent analysis of systemd. -- Matthew Miller <mattdm at fedoraproject.org> Fedora Project Leader
On Tue, 2016-01-26 at 09:11 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote:> Definitely. But please don't show up ranting about systemd unless you > genuinely have something new and insightful to add. We have literally > been discussing moving to an improved init system since 2005: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel at lists.fedoraproject.org/message/Y6PUIY3HOPVKA5IUJQ5TL6WAVTE3G4KY/ > and in that decade, pretty much everything to be said _has_ been said > and considered. That is, we've *been through* the independent analysis > of systemd.Is systemd the beneficial, reliable, useful and workable "improved init system" or something with circa 275,000 lines of coding compared to init's circa 10,000 lines ? Things I have learned in programming include modular is better than monolithic, and less code better than M$-style bloatware which systemd appears to be. Just what is Fedora's and Red Hat's Plan B when the revolt against systemd escalates ? Whom is going to apologise for fouling-up Red Hat's EL and our beloved Centos ? -- Regards, Paul. England, EU. England's place is in the European Union.
On 01/26/2016 10:33 AM, Always Learning wrote:> > On Tue, 2016-01-26 at 09:11 -0500, Matthew Miller wrote: > >> Definitely. But please don't show up ranting about systemd unless you >> genuinely have something new and insightful to add. We have literally >> been discussing moving to an improved init system since 2005: >> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel at lists.fedoraproject.org/message/Y6PUIY3HOPVKA5IUJQ5TL6WAVTE3G4KY/ >> and in that decade, pretty much everything to be said _has_ been said >> and considered. That is, we've *been through* the independent analysis >> of systemd. > > Is systemd the beneficial, reliable, useful and workable "improved init > system" or something with circa 275,000 lines of coding compared to > init's circa 10,000 lines ? Things I have learned in programming > include modular is better than monolithic, and less code better than > M$-style bloatware which systemd appears to be. > > Just what is Fedora's and Red Hat's Plan B when the revolt against > systemd escalates ? Whom is going to apologise for fouling-up Red > Hat's EL and our beloved Centos ? > > >There is no plan B .. use it or use something else. Its not like Debian, Ubuntu, SUSE have decided to not use systemd. EL6 is good for 4 more years, it does not have systemd. BSD doesn't use systemd. systemd is even more important with containers. That's just how it is. If people don't like what Linux does to the kernel .. they can fork it and do something else. If people don't like systemd .. they can fork it and do something else. That's what open source is all about. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20160126/e3457bbc/attachment-0001.sig>
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 04:33:49PM +0000, Always Learning wrote:> Is systemd the beneficial, reliable, useful and workable "improved init > system" or something with circa 275,000 lines of coding compared to > init's circa 10,000 lines ? Things I have learned in programming > include modular is better than monolithic, and less code better than > M$-style bloatware which systemd appears to be.This is a typical comment which clearly indicates very little actual knowledge of systemd. There's really not much to say other than that.> Just what is Fedora's and Red Hat's Plan B when the revolt against > systemd escalates ? Whom is going to apologise for fouling-up Red > Hat's EL and our beloved Centos ?Well, that's certainly dramatic. But the answer is simple: show us the code. If it "escalates" to the point where we have better options, that's a huge win for everyone. -- Matthew Miller <mattdm at fedoraproject.org> Fedora Project Leader
Once upon a time, Always Learning <centos at u64.u22.net> said:> Is systemd the beneficial, reliable, useful and workable "improved init > system" or something with circa 275,000 lines of coding compared to > init's circa 10,000 lines ? Things I have learned in programming > include modular is better than monolithic, and less code better than > M$-style bloatware which systemd appears to be.You should also have learned in programming the lines of code is a virtually useless measuring stick. OMG, the kernel has over four million lines of code! BREAK IT UP! There is always a trade-off between modularity and functionality. Sometimes modularity comes with a functionality and/or complexity cost. PID 1 on a Unix-like system really does have special properties, and so some functionality can only be implemented (at least in a practical fashion) in PID 1. Would you rather a bunch of that "magic" of PID 1 that systemd handles get shoved into the kernel (so that PID 1 isn't so special)?> Just what is Fedora's and Red Hat's Plan B when the revolt against > systemd escalates ? Whom is going to apologise for fouling-up Red > Hat's EL and our beloved Centos ?Yawn. I haven't seen that there's a "revolt" except for a vocal minority. Some of the "no change" arguments sound very much similar to the SELinux, xfs/ext4/ext3, Apache 2, gcc/egcs, glibc, ELF, etc. arguments over the years. A vocal group doesn't like change, argues against it, and presents itself as the voice of the silent majority (that somehow keep upgrading to new versions with all the terrible changes). -- Chris Adams <linux at cmadams.net>