On 9/10/2014 6:10 PM, Russell Coker wrote:
On Thu, 9 Oct 2014, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au>
The only problem I've seen with systemd is the journal file being excessively fragmented on BTRFS. As you don't use BTRFS that won't be an issue for you, but if you did then you could just configure systemd to limit the size of it's journal (which is a good idea anyway).
I've heard of one case where an auto-mount USB device that wasn't connected at boot time caused systemd to fail to boot the OS, even though the file system on the USB device wasn't significant for the boot process at all.
Did you file a bug report?
It wasn't me, I read about it on debian-user some time before the moderated/filtered posts was implemented. There are that many threads and posts on systemd [predominantly negative as you must know] .... I'm afraid that one might have gotten lost if nobody acted upon the issue.
There are more systemd issues, but most of all, the so called ills of sysvinit are due to poor [errors] configuration and not a failing of sysvinit itself.
Using cgroups to track daemons to allow reliable shutdown is one feature that solves significant problems with SysVInit.
That sounds reasonable, but there are normal K scripts in sysvinit that should handle it just as well.
People often mocked Debian for being stale for the stable installations ... give me stale with sysvinit any day, it works very well -- don't force packages to depend on systemd, it is not wanted, nor warranted; fix any apparent configuration issues [that's all
When a package depends on systemd it does so for a technical reason. No-one is putting in gratuitous dependencies.
So, how in the hell did gnome survive before systemd? Also, network-manager ? Just to pick two packages.
I don't use NetworkManager. The Gnome developers have reasons for using systemd, feel free to read debian-devel or any other mailing list where such things are discussed.
I wonder if those reasons are significant or just excuses to support systemd lazily. XFCE and KDE don't need systemd do they? Why should gnome?
What does Gnome do that is so hard to port to non-systemd?
Why did gnome go down the systemd track anyway? They didn't need it before systemd existed.
Also there's nothing stopping you from just porting systemd to BSD. I think that upstream don't want to take the patches, but that's the same situation as OpenSSH...
Lots more work to port things when things have un-wanted dependencies, which for all we know, may be artificial in order to drive systemd forward into /acceptance/ when it would otherwise lean more towards rejection.
The init scripts are grown in nearly half a century and are well-thought through.
Apart from the majority of scripts that have grown without being well thought through. Consider the startup process for MySQL as one of many horrible examples.
So, fix how MySql starts, don't impose the whole mess of systemd on the world, just fix MySql... that would surely be simpler.
The actual start/stop of the Postfix "master" process is the smallest part of it (in Debian at least). Most of it is about maintaining the chroot environment. Admittedly that chroot stuff would also apply to systemd, but your claims of Postfix scripts being the same on all kinds of Unix are obviously wrong.
I couldn't care less, make it work for any startup system -- in this case, fix Postfix so that it can startup without issues with any type of system startup/shutdown components.
For a physical server I wait for the hardware when booting, the OS initialisation only take seconds.
A jail is running more or less immediately. The gain will be in millisecond range.
Other people get different results.
Maybe, but I would bet that many would have no trouble with standard sysvinit startup if they optimized it as they could.
Except that it's not being done every few years. We're talking about a change in default that's once only in the history of distributions such as Debian.
A significant change that the majority of ordinary users DO NOT want.
On Thu, 9 Oct 2014, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
It certainly looks like systemd is dividing many more people, it most certainly is not worth the trouble it is causing even at this stage.
This is the type of arguments that supporters of Dubya used to use. Anyone who disagrees is "divisive".
What is divisive is the moderation / filtering of the Debian-User list to support the very strong stance taken on systemd vs sysvinit in particular, which is clearly against the will of the people ... Debian Users in this case. A.