Re: complaints about systemd

On 17 October 2014 18:51, Ray Andrews <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 10/17/2014 02:38 PM, Christopher Browne wrote:
>
> On 9 October 2014 19:49, Lennart Sorensen <[email protected]>
wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 09, 2014 at 09:25:23AM -0700, Ray Andrews wrote:
>> > Can *anything* justify creating a problem that can't be debugged?
>> I suppose that this invalidates one of the functionality claims that was
part
>> of the basis for adoption...
>
>> Specifically...
>
>> https://wiki.debian.org/Debate/initsystem/systemd
>
> Well, they certainly write a glowing review of themselves, do they not?
> That's a very well written and convincing doc, but it does seem that not
> enough attention has been paid to the issues that have been raised here.

Well, it stands to reason that when they were promoting the notion of being
a replacement for SysVInit, they'd put the best face forward.

And everybody *did* get opportunity to put a face-of-choice forward.
https://wiki.debian.org/Debate/initsystem

While I wasn't keen on Upstart getting chosen, I think the page they
prepared
describing the merits of moving from SysVInit presents good points well.

> On my system I get strange messages about 'start jobs' and 'stop jobs'
which
> come with one minute, thirty second countdowns.  I don't know why it has
to
> be 90 seconds, would 60 seconds not do the trick? 30 seconds just totally
wrong?

Based on the sales job that quotes startup time as 1 second, for there to be
something that takes more than 1 second seems like a severe matter.

> Still, the big question is: are these fixable glitches and bugs, or do
they point
> to those deeper, fundamental problems that we've talked about?
>
> But, to be devil's advocate: One thing about the systemd doc above that
struck me
> as a sound argument was that starting a service is ... starting a
service, and that
> whereas that mostly happens at init, it makes sense that whatever
code/method
> is used to do it at init may as well be used generally. No?

Unfortunately, the current goings-on seem to risk being free of technical
content,
and fodder for flame warring.

I guess I find myself displeased with certain technical points
(e.g. - claims of 1s boot time, that seem invalidated), but I'm usually
finding
things working on my systems that have SystemD.  So far, I can't establish,
from
my own observations, that "different" == "bad".

-- 
When confronted by a difficult problem, solve it by reducing it to the
question, "How would the Lone Ranger handle this?"