On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 9:28 AM, Alvin Starr via talk <talk@gtalug.org> wrote:
On 09/29/2016 11:52 PM, Peter King via talk wrote:
On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:45:09AM -0400, Lennart Sorensen via talk wrote: snip Not sure why people have a hate on for systemd. It is a pain to learn a new way to manage your systems but it solves a number of problems and gets systems into a usable state faster in the face of startup problems. I curse systemd on a daily basis because my fingers know init but quite frankly having to wait 30 minutes for a system to boot up with init because some network connections need to time out is a major pain when its a critical system and the phones are all lit up. systemd removes the single threaded-ness of init and also provides a much better mechanism for dependency resolution. snip
Well - - - I can tell you why I find systemd a royal PITA. Systemd wants to be everything to everybody. That's astronomically difficult to do and what is in place today doesn't work half as well as it purports to. I have run into some of the issues which have resulted in a lot of hair pulling (hard when there's little left) in the process of resolving issues.
I think that the original *nix thinking of doing one thing (at a time) and doing it well or better is my preferred solution. Part of the problem is that, even in Well...
On 09/30/2016 10:47 AM, o1bigtenor wrote: the init process we are use to is not the original init process used by linux. Once again linux vacuumed up something, in this case the system-V init and tuned it with a whole batch of problems when it was first introduced. Now it works well but for the fact that there can be a huge number of init processes starting at system start up and the dependencies are not handled well. There was thought of using a make like system to process the dependencies but that would carry its own bag of problems.
linux, there are too many silos being built and not enough communication.
I wonder if that is because most of the code writers are not really human communicators rather they are far better machine communicators? What say you?
Dee . There is an old programmer axiom. "If it was hard to write it should be hard to understand"
But yes. As a rule FOSS documentation sucks because it takes lots of time and often more time than the original work. Combine that with people using the support and documentation as a way to get paid for the project. You end up with bad documents by nature and by design. -- Alvin Starr || voice: (905)513-7688 Netvel Inc. || Cell: (416)806-0133 alvin@netvel.net ||