Re: [dev] Never Ending Systemd Chronicles

From: Alex Pilon <alp_AT_alexpilon.ca>
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2016 22:57:27 -0400

On Fri, Aug 05, 2016 at 01:12:12PM +0200, Hadrien LACOUR wrote:
> But when you had to modify or write unit files, it wasn't fun.

Dead easy. And you can even add to the definition rather than rewriting.

> Even if most of the vocabulary is simple, the number of keywords is
> simply too high;

So is the number of things in your $PATH…

anyhow, man systemd.directives, be momentarily dumbfounded by the number
of them, then shut up and forward slash.

> while a shell script can be understood by anybody.

Bullshit. How often have I had to check people's lockfile code, or
manual isolation? How often have I had to manually kill things all over
the place because somebody's shitty daemon spawned a subprocess that
daemonized itself or because the shitty pidfile wasn't updated (not
*only* solved by systemd, thank goodness)? And don't get me started on
non-robust shell scripting that I've sometime had to read. I'm tired of
that nonsense.

Having policy built on top of mechanism is a Good Thing™, though your
attempt may look like regurgitated dog's breakfast. Having mechanism
alone is not a good thing, and except for trivial systems, is such a
clear sign of immature design.

If you're going to make an argument against systemd, please make a
stronger one. Repeated noise doesn't help The Cause™, as it seems to be
around these parts.
Received on Mon Aug 08 2016 - 04:57:27 CEST