Originally posted by duby229
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Systemd Dreams Up New Feature, Makes It Like Cron
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by duby229 View PostAdding features seems like an excuse to obfuscate.
It shouldnt be responsible for power management or dev management or job schedules or network interfaces or tty interfaces. Those should each be independent services that of course sysd should be able to start or close. And what happens when someone decides to develop a competing power manager or job scheduler? Why should sysd be responsible to managething infrastructure that has nothing at all to do with its main purpose?All opinions are my own not those of my employer if you know who they are.
Comment
-
Originally posted by duby229 View PostIts already being done...Last edited by funkSTAR; 28 January 2013, 06:15 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by johnc View PostSounds like Lennart is interested in writing a whole operating system of his own.
Comment
-
All opinions are my own not those of my employer if you know who they are.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Ericg View PostSystemd was ORIGINALLY about managing init. And to an extent it still is, anything beyond service management, device management and logging are all optional, (Configure time flags). If you don't want "CoreOS", as funkstar called it, then you dont compile it as such. Now its about having a sane, reliable, standard base system. Its not 1 binary, its like 20, developed as a suite.
Where is the sanity or the reliability or the standardization? I don't see anything like that. Instead all I see is an excuse. The question I have is an excuse for what? Thats what I don't get... What is the point for all these things that it doesnt even need to do? I don't think there is a point. I think this guy has a major superiority complex and he thinks that his way is the only good way. But the truth is that his way isnt good at all and it damn sure isnt the only way.
Comment
-
Originally posted by duby229 View PostBut the thing is that it isnt sane, reliable or standard. Its rather insane to try and have an init system manage subsystems that are in no way related to it. The implementation of these subsystems are incompatible with what they replaced and are full of bugs. They only work on linux and can't support other kernels.
Where is the sanity or the reliability or the standardization? I don't see anything like that. Instead all I see is an excuse. The question I have is an excuse for what? Thats what I don't get... What is the point for all these things that it doesnt even need to do? I don't think there is a point. I think this guy has a major superiority complex and he thinks that his way is the only good way. But the truth is that his way isnt good at all and it damn sure isnt the only way.
And you talk about systemd like it is ruled by one person, it is not. More than 30 people have commit access. YOU are the one with a complex. Suck it up and get ready for the new world order. systemd is taking over.
Comment
-
Originally posted by funkSTAR View PostThe code is much easier to manage in a single git tree; The master branch and releases will always be synchronized between sub projects. This saves 1000s of hours which was spent on compability issues and distro specific shit. There you have it; THIS IS BY FAR THE MOST EASY FUN AND RELIABLE WAY TO MAINTAIN THE CODE!!!!!!!
And you talk about systemd like it is ruled by one person, it is not. More than 30 people have commit access. YOU are the one with a complex. Suck it up and get ready for the new world order. systemd is taking over.
The fact of the matter is that choice is what drives economies of scale. Clearly you don't know much about that though.Last edited by duby229; 28 January 2013, 06:48 PM.
Comment
Comment