User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Myths not debunked but confirmed

Myths not debunked but confirmed

Posted Jan 29, 2013 8:13 UTC (Tue) by k8to (subscriber, #15413)
In reply to: Myths not debunked but confirmed by HelloWorld
Parent article: Poettering: The Biggest Myths

Always raising the bar, aren't you.


(Log in to post comments)

Myths not debunked but confirmed

Posted Jan 29, 2013 12:05 UTC (Tue) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129) [Link]

OK, since you obviously didn't get it: I don't actually think you're beating your wife. I was merely trying to point out that the kind of loaded language you use isn't helpful (specifically, the use of the word "victim" when there's nothing to be a victim of).

cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/loaded_question

Myths not debunked but confirmed

Posted Jan 29, 2013 20:37 UTC (Tue) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link]

No, I got it. You were making a false accusation using rude language.

The victims here are sysadmins who have to deal with a variety of systems who a new thing dumped on them.

Pro: systemd might be better for the subset of systems that use it

Con: most systems don't use it

Sysadmins have many things to learn and accomplish and not welcoming this relatively useless (to them) change is not a sign of incompetence but rather sanity.

That doesn't mean that they should get to dictate how the systems are architected, but they are the ones who get dumped on by this particular set of changes.

So yes, you were blaming the victims. Don't do that.

Myths not debunked but confirmed

Posted Jan 29, 2013 21:38 UTC (Tue) by ovitters (subscriber, #27950) [Link]

Why complain about wording and also say sysadmins are victims? I'm looking forward to RHEL7!

Myths not debunked but confirmed

Posted Jan 29, 2013 22:12 UTC (Tue) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129) [Link]

As evidenced by many comments here and elsewhere, systemd is *not* a relatively useless change, most people welcome it because it's easier to configure, more reliable and more featureful than what came before it. So please stop spreading this kind of FUD. Systemd makes life easier for most people, not harder, which is why most significant distros adopted it by now.

And besides, most systems don't use SysVinit either, and even those who do often bear no resemblance to each other as pretty much everything is done by system-specific scripts. The introduction of systemd actually led to an *increase* in uniformity as distros share most of the configuration files.

Myths not debunked but confirmed

Posted Jan 30, 2013 4:56 UTC (Wed) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link]

So now you chop and change as well.

Every response has been an exercise in mischaracterization.

Myths not debunked but confirmed

Posted Jan 29, 2013 22:15 UTC (Tue) by smurf (subscriber, #17840) [Link]

>> Sysadmins have many things to learn and accomplish and not welcoming
>> this relatively useless (to them) change is not a sign of
>> incompetence but rather sanity.

If you truly think systemd is "relatively useless" for sysadmins, you should re-read this discussion.

Sysadmins need to be able to correctly and efficiently deal with failure situations. Once you use "systemctl status" and see instantly what the problem is, as opposed to grepping through heaps of ps and syslog output, you will not want to go back.

A more obscure, yet incredibly useful, feature of systemd is to start services in a consistent environment. No root login whose strange environment settings can contaminate the daemon and render its messages useless. No tty which can randomly block or vanish. No job control that can block your program or send it strange signals. And so on.

Myths not debunked but confirmed

Posted Jan 30, 2013 4:57 UTC (Wed) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link]

If you're a sysadmin of a monoculture, sure it will eventually be useful.

AFAICT, those people are now called "devops", and they may love it.

Myths not debunked but confirmed

Posted Jan 30, 2013 7:19 UTC (Wed) by smurf (subscriber, #17840) [Link]

Translation: "Incremental progress is bad."

You seem not to notice that you contradict yourself.

Oh well.

Myths not debunked but confirmed

Posted Jan 30, 2013 12:16 UTC (Wed) by mgb (guest, #3226) [Link]

@smurf - The words which k8to wrote have no need of your "translation".

Incremental progress is good.

systemd is bad because its poor design and premature optimization create unnecessary coupling which inhibits incremental progress across a critical mass of system software.

Nevertheless it appears that the systemd problem has been solved. Fedora and Redhat and some other distros have been borged but Debian and Ubuntu and many other distros have stood firm.

FLOSS will simply evolve to leave the systemd-limited distros behind. Debian and Ubuntu and other distros will offer parallel boot options and cgroups options to their users without compromising FLOSS evolution.

Myths not debunked but confirmed

Posted Jan 30, 2013 13:28 UTC (Wed) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link]

FLOSS will simply evolve to leave the systemd-limited distros behind.

I think that, given time, the problem will take care of itself since nobody will be able to come up with anything that is both enough of a significant improvement on System V init to get System V init anywhere near what systemd does even today, compatible with tradition enough so the die-hard System V init fans won't complain, and gets traction in enough distributions so people will actually be interested. (The ones which have subscribed to systemd already aren't going back unless whatever the System V init camp has to propose is really a lot better than systemd, which would be quite surprising.) This is very unlikely to actually happen since historically the distributions didn't even seem to be able to agree on a standard for init scripts, let alone all of System V init or indeed an evolutionarily improved System V init.

In the meantime, systemd will improve even further and, with the major Linux distributions behind it, will become even more compelling. In effect, System V init will leave systemd behind in exactly the way that CVS left Git behind.

Feel free to prove me wrong.

Myths not debunked but confirmed

Posted Jan 30, 2013 14:47 UTC (Wed) by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784) [Link]

Somehow, "FLOSS will simply evolve to leave the systemd-limited distros behind." makes me think "What, like XFree86 evolved to leave the X.org-limited distros behind?"

Myths not debunked but confirmed

Posted Jan 29, 2013 20:42 UTC (Tue) by k8to (subscriber, #15413) [Link]

Nevermind that the whole IDEA of loaded questions is that you ask a question and presuppose the framing is accurate in a weasely way. There was no *question* so the linguistic trick of a loaded question cannot even apply.

I made a statement which linguistically a clear thing which can be accepted or rejected by the reader. So your attempt to imply such underhanded tactics is itself underhanded. Which, if you didn't realize, is why you were being unreasonably rude.


Copyright © 2017, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds