On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 3:49 PM, Miles Fidelman <mfidel...@meetinghouse.net> wrote: > > 1. Experimentation and learning curve take time. That's a real cost that's > being imposed.
What makes systemd different from any other technology in that respect? > It's not clear that the benefits outweigh the costs of the status quo. Ultimately this is a very personal decision, but given the adoption rate of systemd by distributions I don't think that it's going to be that long before people (at least if you want to be employed managing Linux systems) don't have a choice but to become at least passably familiar with systemd. Even if Debian steps back from systemd, Canonical and Red Hat have committed to systemd. > 2. Assumes good documentation. Not a given with systemd, as it stands now. Why does everyone assume that systemd doesn't have good documentation? I personally have found the documentation to be excellent. > 3. Assumes that problems are easy to track down. Harder to do with murky > and monolithic code. Statements that are equally valid for sysvinit. > (I still shudder the first time udev did something > completely counter-intuitive at 0-dark-30, and that's from the same cast of > characters. Udev predates systemd, by a long long time. If you have problems with udev don't blame systemd. > 4. More fundamentally, 0-dark-30 events are almost always unexpected (other > than in the sense of Murphy's Law), and tricky to resolve - one has > hopefully prepared for the expected. Hence, it's not completely clear that > one CAN familiarize oneself in a meaningful way - particularly when talking > about something as monolithic as systemd. That's one of the major reasons > for keeping things modular, and keeping modules simple. This really has nothing to do with systemd. I believe that systemd has made things better in this respect, but you're welcome to believe that the pile of shell scripts in /etc/init.d is better. <sarcasm>I mean really, what could go wrong when we configure boot-up with a Turing complete language?</sarcasm> Really... I know of several instances a poorly-written init script caused boot-up to fail because they had infinite loops in them. -- Jeff Ollie