Originally posted by jpg44
View Post
This is my honestly held and sincere view of the systemd matter: I never got the hatred of systemd. For me, its worked absolutely fine. Its a huge improvement that has increased the amount of control over initialization for the user. The declarative style service files are actually much easier to read and understand the shell scripts. The big seller for me is the fact that you can still do SysV init files to your hearts content. I have tested SysV init files with systemd and all works perfectly well. If people do not like the dependency based start up, anyone who wants to can have their service started from a SysV init file and disable the systemd service file. So given that systemd does not remove any functionality and can run SysV init files, and all functionality it adds is an addition to the traditional SysV functionality, it doesnt take away any choice or freedom from anyone.
It actually increases freedom because you can write DBUS based init code that can include any kind of heuristics you want to respond to any series of events. Because of the Bus based design of systemd, its much easier to monitor for system events and events generated by other programs. The system is actually far more modular SysV init, because you can write your own init daemon which can monitor for any other events on the system.
So given that systemd includes all previous functionality, is backwards compatible, those who oppose it seem to think that they need to be able to deny people the ability to use its features, because systemd doesn't actually deny anyone the ability to use SysV type init for their services.
Remember that Ubuntu had Upstart for years which was basically the same thing as systemd, when Ubuntu went to systemd, it wasnt anything new and was an improvement since it standardized on what the other distros have been doing.
For people who do not like the systemd type init files. The fact is, you don't have to use them, just do a SysV init file and systemd will use those.
You try to explain any of this to people, and it flies right over their head and they absolutely refuse to listen. Its just pointless to try to debate with these people. They refuse to listen adn they have this idea in their mind and they refuse to see the facts that clearly contradict it.
Then they will repeat the same old debunked myths about it that have been debunked over and over again, and which you have just explained to them are not true. Like it being "monolithic", its not, its more decentralized that SysV init was because it is a client server bus based design that is totally decentralized and you can write your own daemon in any language you want to start your services. Or that it takes away freedom, which is the opposite of what is true since you actually have more freedom and control since you can start services on any prerequisite series of system events by watching DBUS, according to whatever heuristic logic you need, if you dont like the service files you are free to use procedural code in your own daemon that can watch DBUS for whatever events you want to respond to. It also does not prevent you from using a cron file to start services (systemd offers similar functionality but you are not required to use it).
People who try to attack Poettering by suggesting that its a power grab ignore that systemd is more configurable than sysv init is. I honestly think that Poettering has and intended to increase user freedom and and flexibility to users because of the decentralized bus design of systemd.
It actually increases freedom because you can write DBUS based init code that can include any kind of heuristics you want to respond to any series of events. Because of the Bus based design of systemd, its much easier to monitor for system events and events generated by other programs. The system is actually far more modular SysV init, because you can write your own init daemon which can monitor for any other events on the system.
So given that systemd includes all previous functionality, is backwards compatible, those who oppose it seem to think that they need to be able to deny people the ability to use its features, because systemd doesn't actually deny anyone the ability to use SysV type init for their services.
Remember that Ubuntu had Upstart for years which was basically the same thing as systemd, when Ubuntu went to systemd, it wasnt anything new and was an improvement since it standardized on what the other distros have been doing.
For people who do not like the systemd type init files. The fact is, you don't have to use them, just do a SysV init file and systemd will use those.
You try to explain any of this to people, and it flies right over their head and they absolutely refuse to listen. Its just pointless to try to debate with these people. They refuse to listen adn they have this idea in their mind and they refuse to see the facts that clearly contradict it.
Then they will repeat the same old debunked myths about it that have been debunked over and over again, and which you have just explained to them are not true. Like it being "monolithic", its not, its more decentralized that SysV init was because it is a client server bus based design that is totally decentralized and you can write your own daemon in any language you want to start your services. Or that it takes away freedom, which is the opposite of what is true since you actually have more freedom and control since you can start services on any prerequisite series of system events by watching DBUS, according to whatever heuristic logic you need, if you dont like the service files you are free to use procedural code in your own daemon that can watch DBUS for whatever events you want to respond to. It also does not prevent you from using a cron file to start services (systemd offers similar functionality but you are not required to use it).
People who try to attack Poettering by suggesting that its a power grab ignore that systemd is more configurable than sysv init is. I honestly think that Poettering has and intended to increase user freedom and and flexibility to users because of the decentralized bus design of systemd.
Comment