Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Fedora 20 Goes For No Default Sendmail, Syslog

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    Originally posted by Rallos Zek View Post
    Amen! Thank g-d there are a few distros staying way from the SystemD crapfest.
    Sysv isn't? In a matter of times, they will end up using systemd or remain irrelevent. If SUN, Windows, Apple have their own init, why not a Linux distribution to cover a common ground to achieve better performance and efficiency.

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by finalzone View Post
      Sysv isn't? In a matter of times, they will end up using systemd or remain irrelevent.
      If a distro is forced to use a specific software or they will become irrelevant then Linux will become irrelevant, since it will loose one of its major advantages.

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by finalzone View Post
        Sysv isn't? In a matter of times, they will end up using systemd or remain irrelevent. If SUN, Windows, Apple have their own init, why not a Linux distribution to cover a common ground to achieve better performance and efficiency.
        yes, it isn't
        init currently uses 100k ram (64bit, 32bit probably less)
        syslogd uses 360k
        klogd uses 280k
        ntpd 700k
        acpid 124k
        dbus-deamon 1400k
        crond 452k
        atd 132k

        all of them together have used ~5 sec of cpu time (comp on for 14 hours)
        out of that 2 sec ntpd and 1.63 sec dbus (dbus was made for gnome and kde things, dont know how many non-that programs actually use it)

        and i can turn them on/off or enable/disable with one simple command, like systemd can too

        better performance and efficiency is not the goal of systemd, integration is


        what i'm trying to say:
        have a healthy argument, dont just spread FUD (like Lennart does)
        Last edited by gens; 09-16-2013, 04:32 PM.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by gens View Post
          yes, it isn't
          init currently uses 100k ram (64bit, 32bit probably less)
          syslogd uses 360k
          klogd uses 280k
          ntpd 700k
          acpid 124k
          dbus-deamon 1400k
          crond 452k
          atd 132k

          all of them together have used ~5 sec of cpu time (comp on for 14 hours)
          out of that 2 sec ntpd and 1.63 sec dbus (dbus was made for gnome and kde things, dont know how many non-that programs actually use it)

          and i can turn them on/off or enable/disable with one simple command, like systemd can too

          better performance and efficiency is not the goal of systemd, integration is


          what i'm trying to say:
          have a healthy argument, dont just spread FUD (like Lennart does)

          First, why don't you go to lennart's blog and tell him what he is missing.
          Second, I would argue the motivating factor behind systemd was the inability of the various init systems to reliably track processes in terms of resources, dependencies, and forking/exec'ing. That was the reason, as I understand it, behind the very early decision to use cgroups in systemd.
          Third, the barrier for new sysadmins is much lower when learning systemd practices than sysv + sysconfig + syslog + whateverelse.
          Fourth, from what I've heard of the systemd testing, sysadmins really like it. It is well documented, and consistent.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by liam View Post
            Third, the barrier for new sysadmins is much lower when learning systemd practices than sysv + sysconfig + syslog + whateverelse.
            Fourth, from what I've heard of the systemd testing, sysadmins really like it. It is well documented, and consistent.
            barrier to init is shell scripting
            cgroups are well documented
            shell scripting language is well documented
            sysadmins should have a choice, not an ultimatum

            also binary logs do not make things easier, id think (am no admin)

            as i said in another thread;
            this documentation starts by talking bad about the former system, in parts with semi lies - lies
            i also said i dont wanna fight on what is "better", as it depends on goals

            with udev being integrated into systemd there is less choice
            and with linux being about choice.. wait what


            what bothers me, and why i write here is "its 30 years old so OMFG IT SUX"
            thats not a good view on anything
            if you look you will find no valid reason for saying systemd is better then init+couple daemons
            (faster boot is also not a reason as it can be done in shell too)

            think about it
            its 30 years old and there were many smart people looking over it, and none seen a problem
            why is that ?
            what is that problem ?


            personally;
            not using systemd only limits me from using gnome, that i dont use

            even more personally;
            i would tell him
            but i dont care about him, i care about the knowledge and mentality of advanced computer users


            TO REPEAT; THERE'S (ALMOST) NOTHING WRONG WITH SYSTEMD, BUT IT SHOULD NOT BE FORCED UPON ANYBODY
            good thing it cant be

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by gens View Post
              barrier to init is shell scripting
              cgroups are well documented
              shell scripting language is well documented
              sysadmins should have a choice, not an ultimatum

              also binary logs do not make things easier, id think (am no admin)

              as i said in another thread;
              this documentation starts by talking bad about the former system, in parts with semi lies - lies
              i also said i dont wanna fight on what is "better", as it depends on goals

              with udev being integrated into systemd there is less choice
              and with linux being about choice.. wait what


              what bothers me, and why i write here is "its 30 years old so OMFG IT SUX"
              thats not a good view on anything
              if you look you will find no valid reason for saying systemd is better then init+couple daemons
              (faster boot is also not a reason as it can be done in shell too)

              think about it
              its 30 years old and there were many smart people looking over it, and none seen a problem
              why is that ?
              what is that problem ?


              personally;
              not using systemd only limits me from using gnome, that i dont use

              even more personally;
              i would tell him
              but i dont care about him, i care about the knowledge and mentality of advanced computer users


              TO REPEAT; THERE'S (ALMOST) NOTHING WRONG WITH SYSTEMD, BUT IT SHOULD NOT BE FORCED UPON ANYBODY
              good thing it cant be
              You seem like you're unwilling to be swayed (you didn't address my points, you just spoke of how things should be) so I don't see the point in continuning.

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
                If a distro is forced to use a specific software or they will become irrelevant then Linux will become irrelevant, since it will loose one of its major advantages.
                In this case, that specific software is systemd designed to take further advantage of Linux kernel and adopted by an increasing amount of major distributions meaning its benefits outweighs its shortcoming.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by finalzone View Post
                  In this case, that specific software is systemd designed to take further advantage of Linux kernel and adopted by an increasing amount of major distributions meaning its benefits outweighs its shortcoming.
                  I take solace in the fact that it will be a cold day in hell before some distros like Gentoo, Slackware, Puppy Linux, any of the BSDs, Solaris, Minix and Ubuntu will adopt systemd.
                  Competition is always a good thing.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by finalzone View Post
                    In this case, that specific software is systemd designed to take further advantage of Linux kernel and adopted by an increasing amount of major distributions meaning its benefits outweighs its shortcoming for those distributions, but not for those that refuse to adopt it, obviously..
                    Fixed that for you. It does not matter at all if some distributions, even if it are major ones, adopt systemd. That does not mean at all that every distribution has to adopt it.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
                      Fixed that for you. It does not matter at all if some distributions, even if it are major ones, adopt systemd. That does not mean at all that every distribution has to adopt it.
                      Yes but it does mean that distributions not adopting it should cope with the changes upstream one way or the other and they are.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X