Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Systemd is winning because they showed up and basically nobody else did" I can't see how you would qualify this statement, which is utterly false. Specifically, systemd adoption was the result of political pressure by LP (the author), who works at Red Hat. There are plenty of other choices out there. The idea that systemd won because of some kind of meritocracy is wrong. It was mostly political with some technical…
What are the other choices? Upstart was awful, and init is a hundred years old.
How to Crash Systemd in One Command
11–20 of 193 posts
Re: How to Crash Systemd in One Command
#12Archived page, since it's not loading for me... http://archive.is/8xUSY
Re: How to Crash Systemd in One Command
#13This is an excellent writeup explaining without hysterics why systemd is terrible software. Unfortunately, I expect that this post will be brigaded by systemd-apologists anyways, denying newcomers to the debate the opportunity to hear the facts...
Re: How to Crash Systemd in One Command
#14It seems like it is quite fashionable to hate on systemd, and it seems like systemd is kindof a piece of crap - in some ways. However, linux is missing basic functionality other os's offer, and systemd is showing up and trying to fill in those blanks. This is open source, if you don't like systemd, if you think it's crap, if you think there are obviously better ways to do it, well, what are you waiting for then? Syst…
Systemd doesn't observe the Unix philosophy and that bothers many people.
Re: How to Crash Systemd in One Command
#15It seems like it is quite fashionable to hate on systemd, and it seems like systemd is kindof a piece of crap - in some ways. However, linux is missing basic functionality other os's offer, and systemd is showing up and trying to fill in those blanks. This is open source, if you don't like systemd, if you think it's crap, if you think there are obviously better ways to do it, well, what are you waiting for then? Syst…
Alternatives have been implemented before: http://cr.yp.to/daemontools.html http://smarden.org/runit/ The more you look at any of DJB's software, the more of the future you'll see.
Re: How to Crash Systemd in One Command
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Systemd is winning because they showed up and basically nobody else did" I can't see how you would qualify this statement, which is utterly false. Specifically, systemd adoption was the result of political pressure by LP (the author), who works at Red Hat. There are plenty of other choices out there. The idea that systemd won because of some kind of meritocracy is wrong. It was mostly political with some technical…
What are the other choices? Upstart was awful, and init is a hundred years old.
Re: How to Crash Systemd in One Command
#17It seems like it is quite fashionable to hate on systemd, and it seems like systemd is kindof a piece of crap - in some ways. However, linux is missing basic functionality other os's offer, and systemd is showing up and trying to fill in those blanks. This is open source, if you don't like systemd, if you think it's crap, if you think there are obviously better ways to do it, well, what are you waiting for then? Syst…
Re: How to Crash Systemd in One Command
#18It seems like it is quite fashionable to hate on systemd, and it seems like systemd is kindof a piece of crap - in some ways. However, linux is missing basic functionality other os's offer, and systemd is showing up and trying to fill in those blanks. This is open source, if you don't like systemd, if you think it's crap, if you think there are obviously better ways to do it, well, what are you waiting for then? Syst…
The Unix philosophy: Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Systemd doesn't observe the Unix philosophy and that bothers many people.
And the userspace tools don't follow this either. Quoting http://prog21.dadgum.com/139.html :
> The UNIX ls utility seemed like a good idea at the time. It's the poster child for the UNIX way: a small tool that does exactly one thing well. Here that thing is to display a list of filenames. But deciding exactly what filenames to display and in what format led to the addition of over 35 command-line switches. Now the man page for the BSD version of ls bears the shame of this footnote: "To maintain backward compatibility, the relationships between the many options are quite complex."
Why, for instance, does ls have its own sorting options if the sort command exists? If ls, the most quintessential UNIX command, can't do one thing and do it well, why should anything else?
Re: How to Crash Systemd in One Command
#19> "Systemd is defective by design." The most succinct explanation of Systemd possible.
having read this post I'd say a slightly less succinct but infinitely more informative version would be
> "Systemd is defective by design because they totally disregard the fail-safe by design rules"
Re: How to Crash Systemd in One Command
#20It seems like it is quite fashionable to hate on systemd, and it seems like systemd is kindof a piece of crap - in some ways. However, linux is missing basic functionality other os's offer, and systemd is showing up and trying to fill in those blanks. This is open source, if you don't like systemd, if you think it's crap, if you think there are obviously better ways to do it, well, what are you waiting for then? Syst…
The Unix philosophy: Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Systemd doesn't observe the Unix philosophy and that bothers many people.
Why not submit a patch that fixes the umask issue the author talks about, or if they won't merge the patch, fork systemd?
This is open source, writing a circle-jerk blog post isn't going to help anything.