Originally posted by Rallos Zek
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Fedora 20 Goes For No Default Sendmail, Syslog
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by finalzone View PostSysv isn't? In a matter of times, they will end up using systemd or remain irrelevent.
Comment
-
Originally posted by finalzone View PostSysv 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.
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; 16 September 2013, 04:32 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by gens View Postyes, 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
-
Originally posted by liam View PostThird, 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.
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
-
Originally posted by gens View Postbarrier 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
-
Originally posted by Vim_User View PostIf 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
-
Originally posted by finalzone View PostIn 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.
Competition is always a good thing.
Comment
-
Originally posted by finalzone View PostIn 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..
Comment
-
Originally posted by Vim_User View PostFixed 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
Comment