Systemd Dreams Up New Feature, Makes It Like Cron

[Teho]

Fuck coreos... If thats what they want then they can implement that on its own distro.... Call it coreos.... But leave the rest of our shit alone please.

You are blaming the wrong people. The systemd developement team developes a LGPL licenced set of tools that's free for anyone to use. It's up to your distribution to choose what init system or set of core-os utilities to use. Many just happen to have chosen systemd.

[Ericg]

Adding 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?

Systemd 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.

[funkSTAR]

Its already being done...

Yeah and it was great laugh. I recommend you to go read the current and former udev maintainers many mails and g+ posts about it. the forksters are dumb ass teenagers on meth. And they already screwed up. udev needs capable maintainers not idiots. Right now udev does very well in the systemd tree.

[linux5850]

Sounds like Lennart is interested in writing a whole operating system of his own.

Lennart Poettering - systemd as the Core OS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2aa34Uzr3c

[Teho]

Its not 1 binary, its like 20, developed as a suite.

I'm not sure if you are refering to just the minimal systemd installation but a full one has 69 binaries.

[Ericg]

I'm not sure if you are refering to just the minimal systemd installation but a full one has 69 binaries.

Thank you Teho, I was actaully referring to a full installation. So instead of 20 binaries, its 69 separate binaries--proving my point even more.

[duby229]

Systemd 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.

But 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.

[duby229]

Thank you Teho, I was actaully referring to a full installation. So instead of 20 binaries, its 69 separate binaries--proving my point even more.

Ironically enough it even proves my point even further.

[funkSTAR]

But 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.

The 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.

[duby229]

The 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.

If you want the linux ecosystem to be a single distro, then have at it. But I promise you that there are very few other people that will agree with you... Those thousands of man hours are worth it. It provides us with a diverse choice of what fits our needs best.

The fact of the matter is that choice is what drives economies of scale. Clearly you don't know much about that though.