171–180 of 464 posts
Perhaps this is a controversial idea, but is this not just someone finally taking the tried and true Open Source "advice" to heart? That is, every time I've reported something is broken, wonky, doesn't work reliably, et cetera, I've been told, "Submit a patch.", "Write some code.", or worse, "Implement it yourself." Someone finally got fed up with the haphazard state of affairs in Linux-land. Fed up with the fragment…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Server admins have so much new technology to learn and play with to stay relevant. If they feel like learning systemd is a chore, they might be in the wrong business.
All the more reason to be judicious in what new technologies are introduced. One of the huge benefits of the Unix/Linux, CLI, and Free Software traditions is that they tend to be very strongly preserving of established knowledge . Changes are incremental, usually additive, a reliance on scripting means that interfaces are unlikely to change, and new tools are very frequently drop-in replacements for old. As specific…
As for my comment being unwarranted, sysadmin'ing requires learning new tech. If there is an improvement on a tech such that it has mass adoption, learn the tech. It's your job. If you don't like it, change jobs. I'm not saying you should shut up and put up. However, we're far past that stage of valued input and people are still complaining. The decisions have pretty much been made that are going to be made concerning systemd adoption. Yet here I am, reading yet again how systemd was the wrong choice, even though rigorous debate was had and core teams decided it was the best decision. Even though this was the biggest drama piece since that blogger blasted linus for being rude. Here we are with 'radical change' in systemd.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You mean this Kay Sievers? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/04/05/torvalds_sievers_dus... - It's basically the buddy of Lennart at Red Hat - at least that is my impression from far away.. systemd may be nice but it's coming from Redhat and cgroups are changed due to because systemd folks wanted it that way as far as I followed that debate...
Yes, we are veering dangerously close to Godwin's Law : not only is Lennart and systemd evil, but everyone who agreed or contributed to it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many large decisions have been made by idiots, badly. Blindly accepting consensus as a rational choice without a counterpoint had caused many years of suffering for the human race from wars to bad science to bad medicine. Whilst I agree that the blog is probably hocum, there's nothing wrong with critical thinking.
Linux developers are generally very smart people in my experience. It's consensus of many experienced and smart people that makes it significant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many large decisions have been made by idiots, badly. Blindly accepting consensus as a rational choice without a counterpoint had caused many years of suffering for the human race from wars to bad science to bad medicine. Whilst I agree that the blog is probably hocum, there's nothing wrong with critical thinking.
I completely agree – but critical thinking involves something along the lines of "here are the things that I think are wrong, this is why I think they're wrong, this is how I think they could be solved." The answer "let's throw everything out" isn't that useful; likewise, dismissing the considered opinion of lots of people who have been doing this sort of thing for a while needs to be done with some rationality. An e…
Moving all the chess pieces at once, which is what is happening is not productive, professional or a sign of experience.
Everything I read about SystemD is negative. Negative on the technology, negative on the people who created it. Nothing positive. How is it that SystemD is about to dominate the market? Who is driving SystemD adoption, and why?
Companies like RedHat clearly drives systemd adoption, because it solve problems for their customers, that would be large enterprise customers. Many of those who dislike systemd has simpler requirements, so systemd becomes some new they need to learn, but it doesn't provide them with any tangible benefits. They didn't see or care about many of the problem or features that systemd address.
Of cause you're going to be negative if a new system, one you didn't need is forced upon you. If you're happy with it you're most likely a large company that doesn't blog about systemd, especially if it's something that just works.
At least that's my take on it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All the more reason to be judicious in what new technologies are introduced. One of the huge benefits of the Unix/Linux, CLI, and Free Software traditions is that they tend to be very strongly preserving of established knowledge . Changes are incremental, usually additive, a reliance on scripting means that interfaces are unlikely to change, and new tools are very frequently drop-in replacements for old. As specific…
Wow, great comment -- and one that all who endeavor to innovate in systems should take to heart. As my former colleague Bart Smaalders was fond of saying, "the hardest software to upgrade is the software in our brains"; when inventing new abstraction, it must be done so sparingly and (as much as reasonable) by leveraging extant notions. This isn't merely to allow a technology to be readily understood (though that too…
I really have the feeling that people are using double standards here, especially when suggesting Solaris or Solaris-derived systems. Since systemd is implementing pretty much what has been in Solaris (SMF) and OS X (launchd) for a while now:
https://docs.oracle.com/cd/E23824_01/html/821-1451/dzhid.htm...
https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/Darwin...
Also, it is of somewhat questionable ethics that members of the Solaris community submit such troll posts (as others have pointed out, there is not much substance there). It reeks of wanting to destroy Linux' image for your own (Illumos, SmartOS) gain.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gnome needs a dbus api that currently only systemd supports, which is not quite the same thing.
With the irony that Poettering was the guy to pull the plug on the alternative. And alternative that could live on top of any init out there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And systemd is changing precisely none of that. Nothing about systemd removes the basic unix command line. Because he's most definitely not explaining the init system, which wouldn't have been the same from year to year then, or even similar decade to decade.
Systemd does touch numerous parts of Unix as it existed in 1978: logging, authentication, and devices come to mind. But much of what it's interacting with came along afterward: networking, far more services than existed at the time, a much more complex security scope, and more. But that's still a good 25-30 years of work, experience, practices, and smoothing out the rough edges that will be shot down the drains. Syst…
The rest of your comment is fear mongering which could be applied to any group of core devs on any OSS project in existence. After all who controls Debian and security defaults? Do YOU trust them?
Perhaps this is a controversial idea, but is this not just someone finally taking the tried and true Open Source "advice" to heart? That is, every time I've reported something is broken, wonky, doesn't work reliably, et cetera, I've been told, "Submit a patch.", "Write some code.", or worse, "Implement it yourself." Someone finally got fed up with the haphazard state of affairs in Linux-land. Fed up with the fragment…
You can't realistically submit a patch to change the direction that Systemd's is going in. For example, they won't accept a patch which removes 95% of the code, so a more modular system can be built. Submitting a patch, implies you agree with the general direction but need a bug fixed or a feature added.
Most being: this is not the issue the loudest voices say it is.