On 10.7.2014 13:30, Balint Szigeti wrote:

On Wed, 2014-07-09 at 13:35 +0200, lee wrote:

David Benfell <benfell@parts-unknown.org> writes:

> I guess the two questions I'm reaching for are:
>
> 1) Is systemd conceptually broken, just a really bad idea from the
> start? Some people say yes, and some of them argue well.

So far, I've seen only arguments that would support that systemd is a
really bad idea because it's broken by design --- or should reasonably
be designed differently.

> 2) Or, is it just that systemd is buried underneath an avalanche of
> horrendous documentation and poorly chosen terminology?

You could look at the source to find an answer.  Perhaps it's great ---
but I doubt it.

Seriously? Looking the source? Except developers who will dig in the source code?
None user will dig the source code, they just will leave the distribution or worse the all Linux area if
they can't solve their problem. I think, if the user can't find solution, (s)he will accept it, but if there
will be too many, they just escape.

Escape where, OSX has similar thing which seems to be even less documented (only my impression might be wrong).
Solaris has moved something similar.  AIX has never been truly SYSV and needs special hardware. BSD's will work but
have their own set of fun and are geared in my experience more to people who like to mess with the code. And some
of them are planning to move to the thing used in OSX (or in it's opensource upstream). Windows also has extensive
ways to manage how processes will start in startup etc.

Maybe the thing is that world has moved forward and there is needs which traditional sysv init doesn't answer
anymore. And any way you feel about systemd something similar would have come anyway and it actually did and
people weren't happy so in came systemd instead. If there is real problems with systemd I am sure someone will sooner
or later fork it and do different version. That's the choice in free/open software it's freedom of making your own if the
current solution doesn't work for you. Nothing of this freedom is taken away.

It's just that those people who actually do work for getting the distributions out have seen that systemd is only
maintained solution at the moment. I think it's somehow telling that no one else is even trying to make better
solution to the problems. It doesn't mean there isn't ways to improve systemd (or make a replacement), it just means no one is willing to
do it.

-vpk