On 07/08/2014 08:05 AM, Russell Miller wrote:
> On Jul 8, 2014, at 7:58 AM, Reindl Harald <h.reindl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> and the next one talking before try to get informations
>> there is no monolithic daemon damned
>>
>> there is one project with one source tree maintaining
>> a lot of daemons and binaries - so be quite before
>> you tried to learn some basics
> Generally when people get personal I figure I must have hit a nerve.
>
> I must have hit a nerve.
>
> I didn't say it was windows-like. I said it was more windows-like than I was
> comfortable with. Even with multiple daemons, It's still not very transparent,
> somewhat incomrehensible, documented poorly while still managing to have
> voluminous documentation, dumps stuff everywhere, and is just generally
> annoying.
>
> Even its sysv compatibility is incomplete. It runs sysv scripts, but in such a
> way as to break any but the simplest. I've run into situations where I've actually
> had to make a systemd unit because it broke the script, and I couldn't fix it. The
> script was fine, ran perfectly if you just ran it, and systemd did... *something*...
> to it. I still haven't figured out what. And debugging is an absolute pain.
>
> And that's all I'm saying in response to you. Keep this up
> and my killfile will have one more entry.
>
>
On OpenSUSE, my trick for "disabling" systemd in the init script, is to rename systemctl at the start and put it back at the end. There is an included script (functions) look for
it and if not found allows good ol' sysV to do it's thing. I expect It's done the same way for RHEL/Centos.
Just sayin'
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
