| |||||||||||||
LPC: Booting and systemdLPC: Booting and systemdPosted Sep 15, 2011 2:46 UTC (Thu) by jcm (subscriber, #18262)Parent article: LPC: Booting and systemd
Fundamental disagreements on the whole point of systemd aside, I'm very worried about the lack of documentation. LWN articles and blog posts don't substitute for decades of practice, books, and experience in the UN*X world. Assuming that isn't an issue is a sure way of being bitten in years to come.
(Log in to post comments)
LPC: Booting and systemd Posted Sep 15, 2011 3:35 UTC (Thu) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
systemd has very comprehensive documentation including man pages, dozens of blog posts covering many aspects and every distribution had its own quirks for sysvinit while systemd is standardized as much as possible. I am sure books will cover it too. What would you consider as better documentation?
LPC: Booting and systemd Posted Sep 15, 2011 18:17 UTC (Thu) by JEFFREY (subscriber, #79095) [Link]
IMHO Blog posts don't count as documentation. They are far too transient. Documentation should not require the use of web.archive.org.
AFAIK it's not documentation, if it's not distributed with the source.
Accurate man pages, and anything that `make install` (or whatever packaging system you use) puts in /usr{,/local}/share/doc *is* documentation.
LPC: Booting and systemd Posted Sep 16, 2011 15:26 UTC (Fri) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
Nonsense. Blog posts *are* documentation and man pages are reference documentation. systemd has both.
LPC: Booting and systemd Posted Sep 16, 2011 16:39 UTC (Fri) by jeremiah (subscriber, #1221) [Link]
As long as there is enough documentation to fix/diagnose problems when you're somewhere without an internet connection.
LPC: Booting and systemd Posted Sep 15, 2011 4:03 UTC (Thu) by mezcalero (subscriber, #45103) [Link]
Jon, there's this old Unix command "man", that is installed on the majority Unix systems. It's pretty cool, you should try it one day. It will show you documentation pages and stuff of most components of a Unix/Linux system.
systemd has 47 of these pages. Woohoo!
LPC: Booting and systemd Posted Sep 15, 2011 7:08 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Oh, that's nothing. sysvinit beats systemd hollow with, uh, one manpage.
Um.
LPC: Booting and systemd Posted Sep 15, 2011 8:50 UTC (Thu) by jengelh (subscriber, #33263) [Link]
That may work towards the claim "systemd is bloated". systemd does so much more over sysvinit, having a larger bug surface.
LPC: Booting and systemd Posted Sep 15, 2011 22:24 UTC (Thu) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link]
I highly doubt that. systemd is big but it's all in one process. No single human on this planet understands all of modern sysvinit.
LPC: Booting and systemd Posted Sep 16, 2011 17:10 UTC (Fri) by mezcalero (subscriber, #45103) [Link]
systemd is not all PID 1. In fact we are very modular and ship 40 separate binaries or so.
LPC: Booting and systemd Posted Sep 16, 2011 3:39 UTC (Fri) by AndreE (subscriber, #60148) [Link]
I like this approach.
Documentation comprehensiveness being directly related to software bloat would give me a compelling argument to give to my boss when asks me to provide thorough documentation for my code
LPC: Booting and systemd Posted Sep 18, 2011 13:27 UTC (Sun) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Did I need sarcasm tags? I was trying to say 'any claims that systemd has no documentation must cater for the fact that sysvinit has dramatically less'.
LPC: Booting and systemd Posted Sep 19, 2011 21:33 UTC (Mon) by Aissen (subscriber, #59976) [Link]
Indeed, it has a lot of manpages. But since it's trying to take over a lot of software, I have the feeling it might not be enough.
Example: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=677962#c4
|
|||||||||||||