|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Poettering: The Biggest Myths

Poettering: The Biggest Myths

Posted Jan 28, 2013 12:38 UTC (Mon) by davidstrauss (guest, #85867)
In reply to: Poettering: The Biggest Myths by pbonzini
Parent article: Poettering: The Biggest Myths

> For example the guy that started this thread (http://lwn.net/Articles/534260/). In general most of the practical complaints I heard about systemd (i.e. not "oh but the Unix way") are about /etc/rc.d.

It's pretty arcane to go rooting around in rc.d when there are tools like chkconfig that have handled such needs for years. systemd still tracks which services are enabled for a target using symlinks, so it's no more or less "the Unix way" than rc.d.

> For upstart, nobody did the work of converting most services to native, which is why you hear screams of horror for RHEL7's systemd but not for RHEL6's upstart. The transition was hardly visible.

Upstart pretty much leaves the SysV init side of things alone and does its own thing. That has a low impact on administrators when you don't convert any of the services over, but it creates a schizophrenic mess once you have a mix. (It's actually alright with *only* native Upstart services, too.)

That's still pretty different from Upstart being more like SysV init or more accommodating to experienced SysV init users.


to post comments

Poettering: The Biggest Myths

Posted Jan 28, 2013 12:49 UTC (Mon) by davidstrauss (guest, #85867) [Link]

Looking back at the referenced post (regarding rc.d expectations) again, it seems that the author was actually looking at the init.d script rather than the enabled/disabled symlink structure, which is what I usually think of when someone mentions "rc.d." So, chkconfig obviously wouldn't handle what he was trying to do.

Oh well.


Copyright © 2025, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds