Systemd Dreams Up New Feature, Makes It Like Cron

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by funkSTAR

You will get the cron-replacement and a bunch more from the systemd git tree. And thats really interesting. If you decide to do like Ubuntu and go all anti-systemd then you also get the pain of maintenance. And the rest of the sane world? They will have a single tree to pull the entire core from.

Now the idiot crowd have to revert to sanity(systemd tree) or sustain the pain and suffering from maintaining crap out of tree. Mark Shuttleworth is probably thinking about ditching upstart too. Any hour spent on core stuff outside the systemd tree is really a wasted effort.

---

Now, would you please explain why suddenly it is a pain to maintain the long existing cron, just because the systemd people decided to also have a version of it? And why they should maintain systemd software out of tree if they aren't using it?
Doesn't make much sense, as usual with fanboys babbeling around.

Unix philosophy is do one thing and do it well.

This I just read about systemd make it seems bloated and monolithic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnc

Sounds like Lennart is interested in writing a whole operating system of his own.

---

Well he hasn't reinvented the wheel yet with another kernel and GNU userland tools, but systemd is making Linux less Unix. I don't imply he's wrong, it's just a fact.
I'd like Canonical to ditch upstart and to switch to systemd in order to avoid having to maintain separate pieces of system core code that have almost the same functionality. But I guess that having invested so much money on it, at least a bit of NIH Syndrome applies. I like Ubuntu, but many have the impression that they're mainly packagers that unlike Red Hat, contribute mostly to their inhouse projects or write only Ubuntu-specific patches. Well, after seeing Android's and ChromeOS success, having full control of core functionality of open source components makes sense too and then community driven projects do not work so well (except in the kernel, where Linus is the great dictator that makes things work)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by funkSTAR

Yeah it is. Those systemd hackers CODE and get the job(s) done while the moronix bitch crowd does nothing but .. bitch. Even though last weeks mythbuster by Lennart sure did shut a bunch of neckbeardos, nothing speaks like real code and commitment(TM).

All your base are belong to sys'd

---

I never hear anyone bitch about Ubuntu's Upstart, Apple's launchd, or OpenRC.

People only seem to be bitching about systemd.
Maybe there is a reason?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ericg

That was actually my reaction too XD I saw the article hit the top of the page and I was just like "...No. Michael...why?"

---

He's doing his job by bringing attention to the retardedness. In 5 years I wouldnt be at all surprised to see x11 wm de and web browser in sysd as well. His excuse is going to be, "its the cloud!!"

So the downfall of linux will be its strength... the ability for people to do what they want?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by uid313

Unix philosophy is do one thing and do it well.

This I just read about systemd make it seems bloated and monolithic.

---

Here's the problem I have with people saying that. "systemd" isn't just 1 binary. Its about 20. When you say "systemd" now youre actually talking about a collection a binaries, a suite of binaries designed by 1 team with the purpose of providing low-level functionality for a linux-based system. It isn't one giant binary doing 20 things. Its 20 binaries with the expressed and explicit purpose of working together with the other binaries of the suite.

I wouldnt call it "doing what you want" Its more like "doing what you have no other choice but to do". Thats why eudev was forked. And it seems like the only downfall will be some of the major distro's. When sysd fails ultimately other distro's will rise. We've seen it happen before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ericg

It isn't one giant binary doing 20 things. Its 20 binaries with the expressed and explicit purpose of working together with the other binaries of the suite.

---

And this wouldn't be a problem if they weren't moving towards ONLY working together with other binaries of the same suite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ericg

Here's the problem I have with people saying that. "systemd" isn't just 1 binary. Its about 20. When you say "systemd" now youre actually talking about a collection a binaries, a suite of binaries designed by 1 team with the purpose of providing low-level functionality for a linux-based system. It isn't one giant binary doing 20 things. Its 20 binaries with the expressed and explicit purpose of working together with the other binaries of the suite.

---

The problem is though that these binaries are incompatible with the ones they replace. They are bigger and buggier.

The whole problem with this idea is what happens when one component needs to take a natural evolution that the maintainers disagree with? It won't happen. And this has already begun..