I just finished upgrading to rhel 7 which is based on systemd and it was
the first time
I really paid attention to it. (With my fedora installs, I've basically
done the most minimal
configuration and having to work with systemd was done only on as
totally need basis.)
At first it seems dumb and complicated, but once you get into the
details of it, it's actually
quite good, in my opinion. It makes it possible to boot your system much
faster by bringing up
services in parallel. In the old SysVinit way, all those shell scripts
were rather complicated and obtuse
and if you wanted to figure out what was happening, you'd need to dig
through them carefully.
The contents of the .service file seems to be a bit more straight
forward to me...
My two cents...
On 09/10/2014 10:14 PM, Tom Metro wrote:
http://www.infoworld.com/print/248950
Mike Gancarz sums up the Unix philosophy: 1. Small is beautiful. 2.
Make each program do one thing well. ... We have built the Internet
and all modern Internet services on those principles. Systemd's design
and implementation violates nearly all of them.
Should it be a surprise that so many long-term Unix and Linux
developers, architects, and administrators recoil at the thought of
something like systemd? It might seem that the design of systemd
purposefully dispensed with the wisdom of 45 years of Unix development
and struck out in a different direction just to spite the old guard.
[...]
Opinions?
-Tom
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss@blu.org
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
