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>
On Tue, 2016-01-26 at 10:47 -0600, Chris Adams wrote:> 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)?Why should the systemd monolithic bloatware be shoved into the kernel, especially when you claim the kernel has "over four million lines of code!" ? Seems like a tactical diversion to deflect genuine concerns about the vast plethora of alleged systemd advantages. When something new is proposed and it is substantially and conspicuously superior, then everyone wants it. Never noticed that enthusiasm with systemd's imposition - an imposition nurtured and promoted by the non-everyday business work environment of experimental Fedora. Most dedicated users of RHEL and Centos, Scientific Linux too, want stability which includes not changing everything every 6 months (? la Fedora) or learning alternative methods of doing well mastered tasks (? la Systemd - does the 'd' stand for dunce ?) Good things quickly and easily attract supporters yet systemd lacks the hordes of anxious and eager users demanding systemd replaces the fundamentals of their smooth working computer systems. Instead we have a few systemd-ers, avoiding the contentious absence of adequate discussion before the systemd imposition, trying to hypnotise us into loving their systemd. Meanwhile those who adore stability and dislike bloatware worry about convoluting systemd tentacles protruding into their well-running systems. One dreads a systemd malfunctioning especially when everything could become inoperable.> 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).I genuinely and consistently embrace improvements. I remain unconvinced system-dunce fulfils my change-advantage criteria. -- Regards, Paul. England, EU. England's place is in the European Union.
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 06:38:58PM +0000, Always Learning wrote:> When something new is proposed and it is substantially and conspicuously > superior, then everyone wants it. Never noticed that enthusiasm with > systemd's imposition - an imposition nurtured and promoted by the > non-everyday business work environment of experimental Fedora.Maybe you're not aware of it, but there are a LOT of things that systemd fixes that people are happy about. A lot of people just don't care because it works well enough that they don't notice it. Like anything in the IT world, you only hear about it when it breaks. -- Jonathan Billings <billings at negate.org>