On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 03:12:18PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote: > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 1:37 PM Consus <con...@ftml.net> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 05:10:14PM +0200, Oddmund G. wrote: > > > I know all this, Ottavio. I have been using GNU+Linux since 1994 after > > > several years with Ultrix/VMS/OpenVMS @DEC: Slackware in the beginning, > > > then > > > Debian until the forced introduction of systemd and the rest of the crap > > > being considered as 'much better' and 'mandatory'. > > > > Because systemd is good enough "base tools suite". Think of it as a base > > system like OpenBSD provides. It has a _lot_ of issues with reliability, > > consistency and whatever, but simply put, other Linux folks failed to > > provide similar tools. Maybe someday someone will make something better. > > I think that thinking of it this way would be some kind of mistake: > > Last I checked, systemd was not modular, was poorly documented, > exhibited incompatibilities with basically all historical interfaces, > and had introduced a variety of boot-time race conditions (which > mostly hit people who tried to change the configuration from the > default). These are all solvable problems, but OpenBSD is not the only > distribution which suffers from a lack of competent contributions.
It is modular to a degree, but separating services requires a bit of work so yeah, in this area systemd sucks. Documentation is pretty good though. I don't like the complexity of the thing, but I've never been stuck because there is not enough docs. Can't say much about historical interfaces. > I don't think Linux is particularly doomed -- computer systems tend to > stick around far longer than most sales pitches would have you > believe. But these are concerning issues. Systemd actually solved a bunch of problems so I don't think it's bad or makes Linux "doomed". > But that's also why these sorts of discussions tend to be fairly > worthless. Of course they are. Just a chit-chat.
