On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 10:47 AM, o1bigtenor via talk <talk@gtalug.org> 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 am curious to know what some of these issues are. (Feel free to privately email me if you feel more comfortable with that). Systemd is not everything to everybody. It is a number of distinct binaries (doing that one thing at a time bit). As systemd keeps evolving, they hit limits of existing tools, and instead of waiting for them to catch up, they just rewrite and move on. Maybe we might actually end up with a plumbing layer unified across all distros.
 
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
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?


I feel that is unfair.

Dhaval