|| ||Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta-AT-gmail.com> |
|| ||Development discussions related to Fedora <devel-AT-lists.fedoraproject.org> |
|| ||Re: systemd vice SysV/LSB init systems - what next ? |
|| ||Tue, 19 Jul 2011 09:48:06 -0800|
|| ||Article, Thread
On Tue, Jul 19, 2011 at 8:51 AM, seth vidal <email@example.com> wrote:
> I agree with one section of your argument:
> Â arguments which are just "I'm not used to this" are bad arguments.
> Many of the arguments presented in this and other threads do not boil
> down to that. If you believe them to do so, Jeff, then you're presenting
> a straw man as I'm sure you're aware.
I disagree this thread specifically boils down to familiarity
argument. Shall I break down the original post point by point?
- it is established, with a long history of familiarity within UNIX/Linux
OS environments, whether by a professional or amateur sysadmin, a system
programmer or architect, a technical or casual user
straight up familiarity argument
- adherence to UNIX principles
which principles exactly? I don't recognize which principle a reliance
on shell soup is a Unix principle of merit. I will say that I believe
that systemd tries to take a step closer to the principle of
clean simple interface than the complexity of the layered shell
centric init we've built over the years.
- ease of use due to shell scripting
straight up familiarty argument.
- transparency of code due to shell use
how is shell more transparent? from my meager understanding of
systemd we are actually getting better more systematic failure and
logging information from systemd unit files than we get from the
complexity of shell scripts. Are we not?
- ease of system setup
straight up familiarity argument. shell based is only easier because
we are familiar with shell and its semantics.
- ease of prototyping, editing, experimenting, etc
straight up familarity argument. How is systemd harder to prototype
with other than the fact we collectively aren't familiar with it yet?
> Many of the arguments are this: All change has a cost.
I'm not denying that change has no cost. But upkeep has a cost as
well. Just because my father-in-law can keep his 40+ year old snow
blower operationally tweaking it doesn't mean its the most valuable
use of his time compared to buying a newer one and learning how to
maintain the newer design. Then again his stated mission in life
isn't to innovate snow blower design and be on the cutting edge of
devel mailing list
to post comments)