Getting on like a house on fire (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on 2015-07-27 00:17 (#FH5W) Perhaps the question should be: In the face of continued great ongoing resistance against a new init system why is it being shoved down everyone's throats? I have looked at systemd. I want no part of it. At all. It looks and feels like something from microsoft. Re: Getting on like a house on fire (Score: 2, Insightful) by axsdenied@pipedot.org on 2015-07-27 07:15 (#FHWQ) As mentioned in the article, what ongoing resistance is actually there? I am in no way expert on systemd but the whole thing may be being blown out of proportion by few people who don't like systems or Sievers. Or who are resisting the change.And I keep wondering why would the more knowledgeable people (who make decisions at Debian etc) agree to go with it if it was that bad.Edit: Accidentally posted as reply to wrong post. Not sure how to fix... Re: Getting on like a house on fire (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on 2015-08-03 09:14 (#G8SE) Debian is indeed what raised a red flag on systemd for me, because the debian way should have been to bring up a dialog during the installation with sysvinit vs systemd choice. And both would have ended up in a system that is mostly working well. The inability of achieving that means either: political pressure was applied, see also the spotify request that turned out as a joke on debian, or that systemd is too invasive from an architectural POV. I gave my best shot at liking it anyway but i have yet to see any feature of my intetest that a system equipped with runit and traditional tools cannot do better. To me it seems a trick to train new devs to update systems just for the sake of it. Commercial IT philosophy done with open source. Re: Getting on like a house on fire (Score: 1) by billshooterofbul@pipedot.org on 2015-08-04 20:14 (#GE2P) Everything was done in the open, look at the mailing lists to see what transpired. It was all in the open. Systemd is a better solution. Making it init by default is a sane choice. Other init systems still work, but giving devs a single one to ensure works makes their lives easier. Systemd isn't invasive, its fundamental. Its the cgroups manager which provides an api for cgroups for other things to use. That just makes sense to have init be the cgroups manager.
Re: Getting on like a house on fire (Score: 2, Insightful) by axsdenied@pipedot.org on 2015-07-27 07:15 (#FHWQ) As mentioned in the article, what ongoing resistance is actually there? I am in no way expert on systemd but the whole thing may be being blown out of proportion by few people who don't like systems or Sievers. Or who are resisting the change.And I keep wondering why would the more knowledgeable people (who make decisions at Debian etc) agree to go with it if it was that bad.Edit: Accidentally posted as reply to wrong post. Not sure how to fix... Re: Getting on like a house on fire (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on 2015-08-03 09:14 (#G8SE) Debian is indeed what raised a red flag on systemd for me, because the debian way should have been to bring up a dialog during the installation with sysvinit vs systemd choice. And both would have ended up in a system that is mostly working well. The inability of achieving that means either: political pressure was applied, see also the spotify request that turned out as a joke on debian, or that systemd is too invasive from an architectural POV. I gave my best shot at liking it anyway but i have yet to see any feature of my intetest that a system equipped with runit and traditional tools cannot do better. To me it seems a trick to train new devs to update systems just for the sake of it. Commercial IT philosophy done with open source. Re: Getting on like a house on fire (Score: 1) by billshooterofbul@pipedot.org on 2015-08-04 20:14 (#GE2P) Everything was done in the open, look at the mailing lists to see what transpired. It was all in the open. Systemd is a better solution. Making it init by default is a sane choice. Other init systems still work, but giving devs a single one to ensure works makes their lives easier. Systemd isn't invasive, its fundamental. Its the cgroups manager which provides an api for cgroups for other things to use. That just makes sense to have init be the cgroups manager.
Re: Getting on like a house on fire (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on 2015-08-03 09:14 (#G8SE) Debian is indeed what raised a red flag on systemd for me, because the debian way should have been to bring up a dialog during the installation with sysvinit vs systemd choice. And both would have ended up in a system that is mostly working well. The inability of achieving that means either: political pressure was applied, see also the spotify request that turned out as a joke on debian, or that systemd is too invasive from an architectural POV. I gave my best shot at liking it anyway but i have yet to see any feature of my intetest that a system equipped with runit and traditional tools cannot do better. To me it seems a trick to train new devs to update systems just for the sake of it. Commercial IT philosophy done with open source. Re: Getting on like a house on fire (Score: 1) by billshooterofbul@pipedot.org on 2015-08-04 20:14 (#GE2P) Everything was done in the open, look at the mailing lists to see what transpired. It was all in the open. Systemd is a better solution. Making it init by default is a sane choice. Other init systems still work, but giving devs a single one to ensure works makes their lives easier. Systemd isn't invasive, its fundamental. Its the cgroups manager which provides an api for cgroups for other things to use. That just makes sense to have init be the cgroups manager.
Re: Getting on like a house on fire (Score: 1) by billshooterofbul@pipedot.org on 2015-08-04 20:14 (#GE2P) Everything was done in the open, look at the mailing lists to see what transpired. It was all in the open. Systemd is a better solution. Making it init by default is a sane choice. Other init systems still work, but giving devs a single one to ensure works makes their lives easier. Systemd isn't invasive, its fundamental. Its the cgroups manager which provides an api for cgroups for other things to use. That just makes sense to have init be the cgroups manager.