From: frede@mouse-potato.com
Bobbie Sellers writes:
> On 9/17/23 12:03, Bud Frede wrote:
>> "David W. Hodgins" writes:
>>
>>>
>>> Learning how to use systemd and all of it's components is a large learning
curve.
>>> So was learning how to minimize cyclic dependencies with initd start up
scripts.
>> SysV init scripts were a puked-up cat's hairball of non-uniform
>> shell
>> scripts and a bunch of symlinks. Good riddance! :-)
>
> So sez you but some very interesting distributions have no
> problem with SysVint and do not use systemd(evil). I haven't
> used
"systemd(evil)"
That's your problem right there. Systemd is just software. It either
works for you or it doesn't. There's no need to get all political about
it. Unix/Linux is not a religion, and systemd is not either.
I've worked as a UNIX and then Linux sysadmin for 25+ years and am
currently supporting Linux systems running a large software suite. (My
title is no longer "Sysadmin," but I do a lot of the same tasks.) The
list of UNIX and unix-like OSes I've worked with is long, and I can't
even count anymore the number of Linux distros I've used.
SysV init has always been rather awkward, overly complex if you want to
do anything other than basic things, and its time is past. I saw the
writing on the wall years ago when SMF came out in Solaris, and was just
waiting for Linux to adopt something similar.
Systemd isn't quite what I was expecting, but it works quite well
IMO. The big cloud providers are stuffed full of VMs using systemd. The
number of Linux systems still using SysV init is minuscule. The battle
is over and you're still emulating Chicken Little.
I don't really care if you want to tilt at windmills, and you're free to
use whatever init system trips your trigger, but I think you're wrong
about systemd's utility for the Linux community. It's a good thing, not
a bad one.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
