On 09/30/2016 10:47 AM, o1bigtenor wrote:
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...
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              ||