Debian Developers Decide On Init System Diversity: "Proposal B" Wins

[Ironmask]

just like unix was an hobby OS: unix never was an hobby OS, but it was the industry standard for decades

Go ahead and install AIX/386 and tell me how usable that is.

Actually, Install CP/M and tell me how usable that is. That was THE desktop standard.

[kpedersen]

Actually, Install CP/M and tell me how usable that is. That was THE desktop standard.

When CP/M was THE desktop standard. Do you even know what the alternative was?

CP/M was not UNIX btw... You might be confusing it with something else.

Go ahead and install AIX/386 and tell me how usable that is.

You do know that AIX/386 was discontinued in 1995 right? It has since been obsoleted (many times) by AIX 7.2 (POWER only) released 1 month ago. You are very out of date.

You might even be so out of date, you probably think "Microsoft" is the only way.

Please go out and buy some newer books! haha

[Ironmask]

When CP/M was THE desktop standard. Do you even know what the alternative was?

CP/M was not UNIX btw...



You do know that AIX/386 was discontinued in 1995 right? It has since been obsoleted (many times) by AIX 7.2 (POWER only) released 1 month ago. You are very out of date.

You are so out of date, you probably think "Microsoft" is the only way.

Please go out and buy some newer books! haha

No, I know these are out of date standards. That was my retort, calling UNIX a viable standard is equal to calling CP/M a viable standard. Linux has evolved so much past UNIX that it is easily no long a UNIX, and it should continue that growth, not shy away from it.
Are you still mad because I said one programming language became more popular than another? You don't need to hold a grudge. I knew I shouldn't have hurt your feelings.

[stormcrow]

Go ahead and install AIX/386 and tell me how usable that is.

Actually, Install CP/M and tell me how usable that is. That was THE desktop standard.

For anyone that was actually AROUND back then and used them, they were extremely usable and widely used. Why? Because unlike today most computers and operating systems came with EXTENSIVE written dead tree manuals that explained how everything worked down to pinouts and circuit diagrams. Ditto for the operating system, firmware interfaces, and any built in or purchased compilers and interpreters. My C-64 came with a manual that explained the board expansion ports, their use, pinouts, and registers. It also detailed how to write programs for the built in BASIC interpreter, described system registers, etc. All of the higher end systems came with both digital and dead tree documentation in multiple volumes describing most of the functionality. The man pages on Unix systems was extensive and generally accurate. So yes, these systems were extremely "usable"!

So stop trolling about usability when you're comparing apples to oranges. These days most computers come with bupkiss and you're expected to "figure it out". It's really no wonder general purpose computing is in the shape it is these days, because no one knows how anything works, and yes this includes Linux with it's usually out of date, missing, or inaccurate "documentation" - and no code never does and never will "document itself". That's a trope for lazy programmers that don't want to write proper documentation.

[Ironmask]

For anyone that was actually AROUND back then and used them, they were extremely usable and widely used. Why? Because unlike today most computers and operating systems came with EXTENSIVE written dead tree manuals that explained how everything worked down to pinouts and circuit diagrams. Ditto for the operating system, firmware interfaces, and any built in or purchased compilers and interpreters. My C-64 came with a manual that explained the board expansion ports, their use, pinouts, and registers. It also detailed how to write programs for the built in BASIC interpreter, described system registers, etc. All of the higher end systems came with both digital and dead tree documentation in multiple volumes describing most of the functionality. The man pages on Unix systems was extensive and generally accurate. So yes, these systems were extremely "usable"!

So stop trolling about usability when you're comparing apples to oranges. These days most computers come with bupkiss and you're expected to "figure it out". It's really no wonder general purpose computing is in the shape it is these days, because no one knows how anything works, and yes this includes Linux with it's usually out of date, missing, or inaccurate "documentation" - and no code never does and never will "document itself". That's a trope for lazy programmers that don't want to write proper documentation.

I... agree with you? That's exactly why I like systemd, if there's any issues I have with a service it's usually just a simple look at the systemd documentation on what command to run. Not quite sure where the defensiveness is coming from, I think we're on the same page.
But I was talking about AIX and CP/M from a software usability standpoint. As in, try using modern productivity software on those systems, or even writing/porting modern productivity software on them. You'll find many roadblocks, and not just because the modern standard is "different", it's because so many new and usable APIs were added. You're hard pressed to even find a piece of software that doesn't depend on GNOME/KDE libraries anymore.

[Paul Frederick]

Why not building your own distribution based on Linux from Scratch or using operating system like Alpine, Void or Gentoo rather than complaining on Debian developers chosing systemd as the main service management for Linux kernel? We are talking about core components. On other topic, you carefully avoid answering an trivial question thus refusing an help because you knew your issue had nothing do with systemd.

Perhaps because I've other things I need to do. If a system that previously worked stops ceases to function properly when using systemd then what else could it possibly be? Let's use a modicum of deductive reasoning here, shall we? I issue commands and they fail to execute. SystemD commands. Hmm, now what could it be? I already invest too much time in system administration and your solution is for me to take on more responsibility? Yeah no, I don't think so. IBM isn't paying me a salary. They pay Lennart though.

[Paul Frederick]

just like unix was an hobby OS: unix never was an hobby OS, but it was the industry standard for decades

When Ken and Dennis first made UNIX it was just so they could play Space War! Which sounds like a pretty trivial pursuit to me. I grew up in the same town Dennis did so I used to see him around all the time. He only moved a town away. We shopped at the same grocery store. The A&P in Murray Hill. Down the road from the Labs. He was a total space case!

[finalzone]

Perhaps because I've other things I need to do. If a system that previously worked stops ceases to function properly when using systemd then what else could it possibly be?

So are everyone yet they find a way to resolve problem. It seems complaining and flaming on a forum is much easier than reading a documentation. How do you learn to run sysvinit let alone using an operating system?

Let's use a modicum of deductive reasoning here, shall we? I issue commands and they fail to execute. SystemD commands. Hmm, now what could it be?

What was the the name of distribution used on that example and the command on which version of systemd? Could you provide the links of issue so other viewers can check your problem?

I already invest too much time in system administration and your solution is for me to take on more responsibility? Yeah no, I don't think so.

Yes, that is your job as system administration running a distribution whose developers set systemd as a system manager. Other posters attempt to help you to understand but you chose to ignore them because they don't fit your view. So yes, you are responsible and attempt to divert your own problem to someone else with your lack of cooperation. Unhappy? why not switching to another distribution or find another job?

[kpedersen]

Linux has evolved so much past UNIX that it is easily no long a UNIX, and it should continue that growth, not shy away from it.

This I actually agree with. For too long has Linux muddied the water of UNIX. I think systemd/Linux should be jettisoned and "allowed" to evolve however it wants.

I predict if it gets too far from UNIX philosophy however, it won't do well. Lets see

[jason.oliveira]

Dear Diary, Came back to the thread after the storm blew over. A bunch of genuine pseudonymous shills called me a shill while they tried to do damage control over SystemD's loss.

My point was proven 100%. No anti-SystemD comment will ever last as the final post in a thread.