Debian To Switch To Systemd Or Upstart

[xeekei]

I don't care what Debian chooses at this point, as long as it's an informed decision.

The reason the capitalisation of systemd is important is because it's supposed to give people an idea of what it actually is, since it's not exactly an init daemon (initd), but a system daemon (systemd).
It introduces a new and simplified paradigm. Yes, a systemd system is simpler than the classical Unix system. That's why Arch made the switch.
This new paradigm makes a lot of processes obselete. Like a windscreen that doesn't get wet, it doesn't need a windscreen wiper.

[Andrecorreia]

normal trolling against canonical

normal trolling against canonical.

but what i like to se the article with fedora 20 with wayland benchmark, no one who likes ubuntu/canonical trolling there ^^

debian needs to choose who is better for them, nothing else, nothing more.

[DeepDayze]

Systemd implemented properly should "just work" and not cause any breakage or any need to recompile code or rewrite init scripts from scratch. So relax people perhaps change is good in the end.

[Sergio]

No, it's not just a copy of launchd. It's much more and better. I doubt freebsd will be doing fine, but everyone has the right to dream. kfreebsd in Debian has no users compared to Linux, so it's hardly an evolution. It will be creationism when it goes from zero to 0,1%. Something from nothing means creation or miracle in this case.

Yes, it IS a copy, just like anything else in Linux's history, unlike the *BSD's and even Solaris that always innovate.

[Delgarde]

What is the problem, since logind works quite well?

As far as I'm concerned? No problem at all. But the number of people who froth at the mouth at the mere thought of systemd tells you that there are those who *do* see a problem...

[Delgarde]

Isn't the whole UNIX idea to do one thing and do it good?

No, it's certainly not the whole idea. It's a useful enough design philosophy, but it's not some holy law that must be obeyed no matter what.

[Siuoq]

120 posts just because Canonical's software is included in the article. Trolls everywhere I look! OMG!

120 post just because RedHat's software is included in the article. GNOME and systemd must be killed with fire.

[ceage]

This Unix idea to do one thing and do it good it's nothing, but hypocrisy. X proves I'm right. Unix had nothing against X, why? It's monolithic mass, isn't it? However, X isn't Linux exclusive and this is where Unix hypocrisy lies.

X (as an implementation) wasn't always like this. The whole let's-move-the-graphics-drivers-into-user-space thing was done because some people wanted to port it over to closed source platforms. The real Unixes had nothing to do with that kind of crap. They had their graphics drivers in the kernel, the way it's supposed to be. However, the basic design of X is not monolithic. It's more modular than Wayland and Mir. But that doesn't mean much by itself anyway.

That said, all of those catchy one-liners on `what Unix is all about' are simplistic generalisations. Quite frankly, when some person starts citing the Unix philosophy instead of bringing forward technical arguments to support their position, it's often a sign that they don't really know what they're talking about. Yes, Unix philosophy is great; it's also used far too often as an excuse for being too lazy to think for oneself or too ignorant to acknowledge the existence of a technical problem.

Ironically, the original Unix designers were much more vague and careful when they talked about their ideas than those who base their line of argumentation on said ideas out of pure dogmatism and cluelessness. That's one thing the philosophy was certainly never intended to be: dogmatic. Unix is about doing useful work, not about being right for the sake of being right.

Or, to paraphrase Hector Barbossa, ``The Unix philosophy is more what you'd call guidelines than actual rules.''

[Hamish Wilson]

Ironically, the original Unix designers were much more vague and careful when they talked about their ideas than those who base their line of argumentation on said ideas out of pure dogmatism and cluelessness. That's one thing the philosophy was certainly never intended to be: dogmatic.

You seem surprised. Has it ever not ended that way?

[Delgarde]

Quite frankly, when some person starts citing the Unix philosophy instead of bringing forward technical arguments to support their position, it's often a sign that they don't really know what they're talking about. Yes, Unix philosophy is great; it's also used far too often as an excuse for being too lazy to think for oneself or too ignorant to acknowledge the existence of a technical problem.

Agreed. It's just another variant of people talking about "best practices" or "design patterns" - they're useful concepts, but only if the person doing the talking understands why (and more importantly, understands when they're not appropriate). Too often, the person doing the talking is just repeating something they found in a book, thinking it makes them sound wise.