That's what Poettering has been doing his whole life, getting into good open source projects, squatting and then shitting all over them. The infection, stink and filth then linger for decades. He's a cancer on open source.
That's a bit rude... I think Poettering's main motivation has been to simply modernize Linux.
Yeah, that's true. He sees features people want, and he builds them. For example, Debian distro builders were frustrated writing init scripts, so Poettering made something that filled the need of those distro builders [slashdot.org]. That's why it got adopted, because it contained features they wanted.
Do we have any *good* systemd alternative projects--that attempt to fix these problem features but do so with *good* unix-way architecture?
Good question. To reiterate the problem, it's that init scripts are a pain to write, and the systemd unit files makes it easy.
Of course, there are plenty of systems that are happy to not use systemd. The core of the question then is, why do systems like OpenBSD, FreeBSD, and Slackware not have any problems with init scripts? Their systems work well, AFAIK. When I get time, I'd like to do a comparative analysis of these different systems, to figure out why Debian had so much trouble with init, but the oth
I had trouble with init scripts. The systemd init subsystem was a better approach. The problem was, systemd also brought in a lot of stuff that wasn't directly part of the init subsystem that I didn't want, don't want, and don't see any probability of ever wanting.
Because Poettering doesn't understand "modular", I don't get just the good stuff - it's all or nothing. And because systemd isn't even modular as an overgrown bloated monstrosity, the only way to avoid it is to either run old distros or some other
I had trouble with init scripts. The systemd init subsystem was a better approach. The problem was, systemd also brought in a lot of stuff that wasn't directly part of the init subsystem that I didn't want, don't want, and don't see any probability of ever wanting.
Yeah, that's basically the problem. Systemd is really three different things:
1) init system
2) cgroups manager (cgroups architecture is still crap, btw)
3) session manager
It probably does more stuff, but it's hard to keep track of it all
BSD is looking better all the time (Score:0)
LOL still fighting to his day with Pulse Audio on XFCE on Fedora 22.
Jeez has it come down to me having to write a functional volume/mixer applet for myself?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's what Poettering has been doing his whole life, getting into good open source projects, squatting and then shitting all over them. The infection, stink and filth then linger for decades. He's a cancer on open source.
Re: (Score:-1)
That's a bit rude... I think Poettering's main motivation has been to simply modernize Linux.
That he uses giant bloated abstraction layers to do it, is a bit questionable of course. :)
Linux already runs slower than Windows because of this overengineered junkpile.
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a bit rude... I think Poettering's main motivation has been to simply modernize Linux.
Yeah, that's true. He sees features people want, and he builds them. For example, Debian distro builders were frustrated writing init scripts, so Poettering made something that filled the need of those distro builders [slashdot.org]. That's why it got adopted, because it contained features they wanted.
The problem of course is that he doesn't understand the Unix way [catb.org], especially when it comes to good interfaces between code [slashdot.org] (IMNSHO).
The people who like systemd tend to like the features.......the people who dislike it,
Re: (Score:1)
Do we have any *good* systemd alternative projects--that attempt to fix these problem features but do so with *good* unix-way architecture?
Re: (Score:2)
Do we have any *good* systemd alternative projects--that attempt to fix these problem features but do so with *good* unix-way architecture?
Good question. To reiterate the problem, it's that init scripts are a pain to write, and the systemd unit files makes it easy.
Of course, there are plenty of systems that are happy to not use systemd. The core of the question then is, why do systems like OpenBSD, FreeBSD, and Slackware not have any problems with init scripts? Their systems work well, AFAIK. When I get time, I'd like to do a comparative analysis of these different systems, to figure out why Debian had so much trouble with init, but the oth
Re: (Score:3)
I had trouble with init scripts. The systemd init subsystem was a better approach. The problem was, systemd also brought in a lot of stuff that wasn't directly part of the init subsystem that I didn't want, don't want, and don't see any probability of ever wanting.
Because Poettering doesn't understand "modular", I don't get just the good stuff - it's all or nothing. And because systemd isn't even modular as an overgrown bloated monstrosity, the only way to avoid it is to either run old distros or some other
Re:BSD is looking better all the time (Score:4, Insightful)
I had trouble with init scripts. The systemd init subsystem was a better approach. The problem was, systemd also brought in a lot of stuff that wasn't directly part of the init subsystem that I didn't want, don't want, and don't see any probability of ever wanting.
Yeah, that's basically the problem. Systemd is really three different things:
1) init system
2) cgroups manager (cgroups architecture is still crap, btw)
3) session manager
It probably does more stuff, but it's hard to keep track of it all
Re: (Score:2)
4) log mutilator
5) dbus abuser - so I'm told. Fortunately, I haven't had need to get involved at that level. Yet.
It probably does more stuff, but it's hard to keep track of it all
Re: (Score:2)
5) dbus abuser - so I'm told.
I don't know what you mean by 'abuser,' but they're trying to get dbus integrated into the kernel.