[ale] [Fwd: Advertising on ale.org] - OT MS vs Apple vs Linux/UNIX

[Jim Kinney]

On Sep 10, 2015 1:21 PM, "Lightner, Jeff" <JLightner at dsservices.com> wrote:
>
> Well when major distros like the ones you've listed commit to not use it
this is clearly the death knell for systemd.  :p
>
> Seriously - learn to love systemd - it is NOT the great evil people that
haven't tried it suggest it is.

+1

I find systemd to be far easier that the hodgepodge collection of kludges
accumulated over the years of sysV on rhel/fedora. I want my stuff to run
they way _I_ want it to run. Once the simple basics of systemd are
understood, it's easier to manage my application startup environments. Each
application has an environment config file. Systemd is used to define
prerequisite services so crap like nfs starting before network is up no
longer happens.

It seems that once I dig past the issues of the personalities of the devs,
the complaints are rather thin. It would be highly impractical to have the
same command set used for two different outputs from two different inits.
It's not like systemd suddenly appeared 6 months ago. It's been around more
than 4 years. There's a global array of people with a good track record of
picking new technologies to work into Linux distros. From my perspective,
there's very little that's hit the big "FAIL" button and a tool as central
and vital as the init process will have been beat up on operational
theories before being accepted into use by the top 95+% of installed Linux
distros. So, time to learn new tricks.

>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ale-bounces at ale.org [mailto:ale-bounces at ale.org] On Behalf Of Steve
Litt
> Sent: Thursday, September 10, 2015 12:38 PM
> To: ale at ale.org
> Subject: Re: [ale] [Fwd: Advertising on ale.org] - OT MS vs Apple vs
Linux/UNIX
>
> On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 19:00:54 +0000
> "Lightner, Jeff" <JLightner at dsservices.com> wrote:
>
> > Systemd is not just on RedHat style distributions – in fact RHEL
> > itself is rather late in doing it.     (You can still do RHEL6 if it
> > bothers you that much – it’s only on RHEL7 you see it.)
> >
> > You can rail against systemd but you’re unlikely to avoid using it
> > over time because most of the popular and commercial distros have
> > adopted it:
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemd#Adoption_and_reception
>
> PROPAGANDA ALERT: The systemd industry says they've won the battle and
you have no alternative but to use systemd.
>
> * Devuan and Funtoo have committed to never using systemd
> * Manjaro-OpenRC has very little systemd detrius, and its systemd
>   vestiges are harmless
> * PC-BSD has no systemd
> * All the preceding can easily be set up to do the work of a Linux box.
> * Devuan has created its own udev, which is the flagship of systemd
>   vendor lock-in. So have Gentoo/Funtoo.
>
>
> >
> > Personally I don’t find systemd as horrible as some would seem to
> > suggest.
> >
> > One of the first things I learned in Management class in college is
> > “People are resistant to change”.    Most of the complaints I’ve seen
> > about systemd boil down to “Why change, init worked for years?”.
> > Despite the fact there are many reasons given for the “Why change”
> > many who complain simply disregard them.
>
> PROPAGANDA ALERT: The old "newer is better" argument. ISIS is new, but
not necessarily better. Ebola in cities is a new thing, but perhaps not an
improvement.
>
> Now let's talk about change, complaints and reasons.
>
> Name me one other change in the Linux world that generated even 1/10 of
the complaints of systemd. Yeah, I can't think of one either. If you don't
like Emacs, you use Vim, or Eclipse, or Bluefish, or whatever.
> You can switch editors as easily as you can change clothes.
>
> Don't like Gnome? No problem: use KDE, or Xfce, or LXDE, or OpenBox, or
any one of ten or twenty others. You can switch WM/DE as fast as rearrange
chairs in your living room.
>
> Until very recently, if you didn't like sysvinit, you could have
effortlessly replaced it with s6, runit, or several others.
>
> Now comes systemd, built from the ground up to prevent its own
replacement, because it promiscously interacts with as much as it can.
> Replacing systemd requires not only the usual replacement of PID1 and
process manager, but also initramfs, udev, and now su, for gosh sakes.
> Every month, systemd subsumes more of what was once the toolkit Linux
users used every day.
>
> People didn't complain because it was new: They complained because it was
"my way or the highway."
>
> And for what? 90% of use cases are for practical purposes init agnostic.
For this 90%, there is no "reason": They didn't ask for a better init in
the first place.
>
> I could go on about systemd's architecture, but this response is already
long enough.
>
> SteveT
>
> Steve Litt
> August 2015 featured book: Troubleshooting: Just the Facts
http://www.troubleshooters.com/tjust
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
> See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
> http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20150910/8458fbcf/attachment.html>