Hi, On 9/10/2014 7:46 PM, Erik Christiansen wrote:
ISTM that if neither upstart nor systemd deliver the goods once finished, then a third new offering will arise. Parallel starting of services, and effective handling of events will be provided, one way or another, I expect.
Perhaps. What makes a monolithic piece of software, like systemd the answer? Traditional Linux/Unix is built around processes that do ONE thing very well and without re-inventing the wheel. Sure we have choices where multiple wheels are available, but usually those wheels can act stand alone from competing wheels without locking in the car to use a specific wheel ... so to speak.
Incidentally, if any of your posts on this thread have described a specific showstopper that you have personally experienced in systemd, or can tell us how to replicate, then I have missed it.
What makes you so sure that I must have personally suffered from the use of systemd? I read fairly widely on matters to do with system administration works that I do for my own servers and servers of other people and clients. Therefore, I have gained some knowledge in relation to systemd and the nightmares that others are experiencing. I am also a user of sysvinit for a significant period of time and find that arguments against sysvinit are shallow and not worthy to cause it's demise.
I'm quite prepared to blow raspberries at systemd too, but would need a real-world reason to do so.
There is real world experience in other systems that can count as well. The enormity of the systemd change should not be understated. There is often a case for no change or more limited change when change is actually necessary. There is also a place for other modular type solutions to perceived problems of sysvinit as well as /fixing/ the broken scripts that are to blame for pushing forward a replacement when none is really warranted. Have a nice day. A.