(Sorry, Lisi. This goes beyond losing or winning gracefully.) On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 8:21 AM, AW <debian.list.trac...@1024bits.com> wrote: > On Fri, 29 Aug 2014 07:45:12 +0900 > Joel Rees <joel.r...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Are you a sockpuppet arguing ironically? If so, which side do you > > support? Microsoft? > > I guess you're not interested in the previous post about ad-hominem...
Ad-hominem, in logic, is when you attack the bearer of the message instead of the message. I think you understand that, but choose to ignore it because you would have to examine your logic. > and... Oh! You mean unix sockets... hahaha! that's funny. Cute. About as cute as erasing the evidence so you can complain that someone insults you by questioning both your logic and your purpose. If your purpose were clean, I think you would find less need to defend bad logic. > I'm on the FOSS side. Fat chance I'm going to believe that after this thread. > However, systemd is much better than sysvinit. Says a lot of people who think that thinking it is will make it so, as opposed to actually learning what the undergirdings that made *nix a strong system in spite of apparent technical disadvantages from the word go. Speaking of thinking, have you read The Music Man? Do you understand what the "think system" was a metaphor of, in the context of the times when it was written? Do you understand that the blog you quoted from basically ignored the bulk of criticism and analysis on the play, including the author's own analysis? > And > change has been in the works for the better part of the last 15 years - Change is always in the works. That's a null argument, completely irrelevant to systemd's virtues and detriments. > that's > half of the purported 30 years of 'stable and unwanted change' of sysvinit. > Look > up simpleinit for what looks like a decent precursor to systemd. What on earth is that supposed to mean? If you intend to propose that the current systemd is derived from something that was doodled on fifteen years ago, the basics of the design of systemd goes way back before then, before the births of the coders that are the principle authors of the current systemd. It was a bad idea then, and the fact that CPUs have all this extra power to waste cycles doing that kind of stuff now does not make it good design now. >Furthermore > there are Debian whitepapers published around circa 2002 regarding the short > comings of sysvinit and the advantages of switching it out for a dependency > based init. There are many ways to implement dependency checks in an init system. They all have the failing that the init system has to understand what each and every daemon must do if some need is not fulfilled. It takes arrogance way beyond hubris to believe that one could develop a database to track all the different needs and options of various useful and important daemons. systemd goes beyond offering a database. To put that in plain English, each daemon has to decide for itself how to respond when something it depends on is not available, especially when waiting for a dependency results in deadlock. (Theodore Ts'o pointed that out in the discussion on simpleinit, if you look that up.) But Lennart Poettering is arrogant enough to think he can figure that out and encode it deep in the internals of systemd. At absolute best interpretation, he's proclaiming that systemd can absorb the knowledge necessary in a timely manner, I suppose by bug reports and really fast response time. (You think?) In a less rosy interpretation, he proposes a time beyond which he will arbitrarily declare any new daemon that does not follow some established pattern of initialization unworthy to exist until he can get around to fixing his baby to know what the new daemon needs. > > Follow-ups, if any, on off-topic, please. > > You seriously must be joking if you think you'll just drop a personal insult > on > me and then sweep me off to off-topic... Hmm. Should I go back and see how many times you have tried to "sweep" this thread off-topic? Or are you not one of those who have been calling for an end to the conversation on debian-user? > --Andrew > > References: > https://www.kernel.org/doc/ols/2002/ols2002-pages-176-182.pdf > > http://www.safe-mbox.com/~rgooch/linux/boot-scripts/ > > https://people.debian.org/~hmh/debconf2/debconf2-initscripts-bkg.pdf https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/04/msg02050.html -- Joel Rees Be careful where you see conspiracy. Look first in your own heart, and ask yourself if you are not your own worst enemy. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/CAAr43iOg4d6CYAT=yogaimmsk-77km8jq2daco_ccoj_ubf...@mail.gmail.com