Ubuntu's Mir Display System Is Thinking About "Version 1"

[starshipeleven]

Bucket of BullShit,OpenRC has been around since 2007. It pretty much equals systemd-init by functionality but no, "better and our own solution" was needed and was built up from scratch. Thus I'd say his claim of NIH syndrome is pretty much justified.

OpenRC has been around since 2007. It pretty much equals systemd-init by functionality

OpenRC equals systemd-init by functionality

OpenRC equals systemd-init

[aht0]

VERY mature reaction. 15?

[starshipeleven]

VERY mature reaction. 15?

When I answer immature bullshit, I usually do it at the same level. I want to be understood by the original poster.

[aht0]

When I answer immature bullshit, I usually do it at the same level. I want to be understood by the original poster.

Sorry, but this does not make you appear more mature. I'm going to lower my evaluation down to "10y old" level. Just raging words and no particular content.

Fact 1. OpenRC was released back in 2007.
Fact 2. Around the time systemd-init was composed as an mere idea, it was already mature software and viable choice.
Fact 3. Logically, guys claim that there were no alternative at all to Upstart is thus invalid.

What are I am going to get now? Something that looks like 5y old raging?

[starshipeleven]

Sorry, but this does not make you appear more mature. I'm going to lower my evaluation down to "10y old" level. Just raging words and no particular content.

Dunno, I just put a bit of emphasis on the mindboggling total gargantuan huge gigantic bullshit claim of yours that OpenRC pretty much equals systemd-init functionality.
Something that shows:
-you know jackshit of systemd
-you know jackshit of OpenRC
-you are an idiot troll

Really, it does not need much more explanation than that.

Fact 1. OpenRC was released back in 2007.
Fact 2. Around the time systemd-init was composed as an mere idea, it was already mature software and viable choice.
Fact 3. Logically, guys claim that there were no alternative at all to Upstart is thus invalid.

That's not what you said in the post above.
You said "OpenRC equals systemd-init functionality". Those words have a meaning, and that meaning isn't anywhere near what you claim now.

Now, let's address this new claim "no alternative at all to Upstart is thus invalid":
being OpenRC basically the same concept of Upstart (a patch on top of sysvinit, still relying largely on scripts, ok it had a major difference: it actually worked, to the contrary of Upstart), and NOT ANYWHERE NEAR something that can do what systemd does (long list), the claim "no alternative to Upstart" is right, as an "alternative" needs to be something different, not a sidegrade.

[aht0]

rage much nub? By the time systemd-init was still a concept OpenRC already had existed for a bunch of years. Logically it means, it surpassed systemd-init in functionality (don't get heart attack now) since the systemd-init did not even exist yet

. It does not matter what systemd-init can do now, it matters what were it's planned capabilities on design board.

It would have been trivial task to simply fork it (2-clause BSD license), rename it systemd-whatever and modify it every which way wanted. No, it was deemed better to go from scratch, thus you like it or not, it was done under NIH syndrome.

Your reaction to any criticism to systemd is rather amusing btw..

[starshipeleven]

By the time systemd-init was still a concept OpenRC already had existed for a bunch of years. Logically it means, it surpassed systemd-init in functionality (don't get heart attack now) since the systemd-init did not even exist yet

Bullshit backpedaling, even if it was valid it still does not mean that OpenRC wasn't a side-grade of Upstart, so the "no alternative at all to Upstart" statement is still valid.

. It does not matter what systemd-init can do now, it matters what were it's planned capabilities on design board.

Its planned capabilities on the design board made it already wildly different (and better) from linux init systems of the time, still posting bullshit because you don't know systemd, OpenRC and you are an idiot troll.

It would have been trivial task to simply fork it (2-clause BSD license), rename it systemd-whatever and modify it every which way wanted.

Sure, let's fork an init that follows a completely different design principle down to the core, then dump the whole codebase, and rewrite from scratch everything as we want to make something that is NOT ANYWHERE LIKE the original project.

No, it was deemed better to go from scratch, thus you like it or not, it was done under NIH syndrome.

Going from scratch was the only way because systemd approach to a system init is COMPLETELY different than the one of Upstart or OpenRC, you retarded idiot troll.

They wanted to make a binary configuration-based system where all the logic and smarts is compiled in the init system itself, and only called by dumb config files, while OpenRC is still a simple dumb binary init whose only job is running a ton of scripts on top where the smarts are.

How in the name of our lord and saviour Lennart Pottering can you even think they are similar? There is no NIH. NIH happens when there are already similar things out and you make your own.

If nothing like your project is out, then you are genuinely making something new because you think it is better, it's not NIH.

Your reaction to any criticism to systemd is rather amusing btw..

That's my reaction to all bullshit I see, actually.

[aht0]

Bullshit backpedaling, even if it was valid it still does not mean that OpenRC wasn't a side-grade of Upstart, so the "no alternative at all to Upstart" statement is still valid.

Its planned capabilities on the design board made it already wildly different (and better) from linux init systems of the time, still posting bullshit because you don't know systemd, OpenRC and you are an idiot troll.

I use OpenRC in Manjaro and Alpine and I am using systemd because it what you get with OpenSuSE. Only idiot troll here is you. I doubt you have used OpenRC even once in your life.

OpenRC and Upstart had AFAIK no relation to each-other.

ONLY 2 things it's inferior with, is having shell scripts instead of service config files and no socket activation. As is, similarly to systemd-init OpenRC can handle service startup in parallel, cross-services dep's, keeps stuff alive, per-service confs and so forth. It does what init has to do and does it well. It does not try to tie my shoes or walk my dog as well.. And is hell of a lot easier to debug than systemd.
Educate yourself.

https://wiki.debian.org/Debate/initsystem/openrc

In that light, systemd-init was utterly unnecessary unless you are willing to assume that systemd devs had that 50+ binary monster in mind since the beginning and all that talk about needing an init were just putting up acceptable excuse for the public and getting the project going. Did the init and did not stop. So people just had to accept their creation after a fact. It's classic tactics for "better do now and beg forgivness later than ask permission in advance".

Sure, let's fork an init that follows a completely different design principle down to the core, then dump the whole codebase, and rewrite from scratch everything as we want to make something that is NOT ANYWHERE LIKE the original project.

Yeah, fits well what I was theorizing above about.

They wanted to make a binary configuration-based system where all the logic and smarts is compiled in the init system itself, and only called by dumb config files, while OpenRC is still a simple dumb binary init whose only job is running a ton of scripts on top where the smarts are.

And simplicity while getting the job done, is bad exactly how?

How in the name of our lord and saviour Lennart Pottering can you even think they are similar? There is no NIH. NIH happens when there are already similar things out and you make your own.

- per service configuration. Check
- parallel service startup. Check
- Keep-alive for daemons. Check

It was literally reinventing a wheel when there was working alternative considering proposed design. You have to keep in mind that initially systemd was proposed as a replacement init system, nothing more, especially not something it has become today.
NIH, duh.