Hello Craig, On Thu, 2015-08-06 at 16:45 +1000, Craig Sanders wrote:
On Wed, Aug 05, 2015 at 10:31:17PM -0700, Rick Moen wrote:
Touting systemd because it isn't an 'old-fashioned init system' and comparing it only to SysVInit is pretty much the same thing DJB fanboys do when they tout Qmail as better than an 'old-fashioned MTA system' like sendmail. I.e., it's a fake and artificial comparision, comparing only against one antique while ignoring modern, current competitors. For example, OpenRC.
or Postfix.
the other problem with this line of argument is that systemd is NOT just an init system, it does lots of other things as well, taking over functions that an init system has no business interfering with.
Exactly what I have noted from the discussion, fortunately not yet had the "experience", but that is one reason I no longer touch Microsoft software, if at all possible.
and it's particularly annoying that when critics point this out that the response from systemd-pushers is "but it's a great init system, better than sysvinit".
even conceding that point just for the sake of the argument (personally i see nothing wrong with sysvinit and find the systemd scare campaign against shell scripts both offensive and neo-luddite) that does not justify all of the other things that systemd does a half-arsed job of.
The fact it does binary logs is a _very_ _major_ defect in my opinion and experience. There was a reason for Unix, and all successors, to use text configuration and logging. Binary log files are a excellent way of obfuscating the very information I will need, when I cannot get at software that will decode. Text is readable!
as you say, if sysvinit really needs replacing, there are other alternatives like openrc that confine themselves to just being an init, without all the other bullshit.
I noted that it is possible to put openrc on Debian 8. I shall need to do a bit of research. Some notes from you and/or Rick Moen would be very appreciated.
craig
Regards, Mark Trickett