On 12/13/2015 04:19 AM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
Alice Wonder wrote:
In the server environment you almost certainly are using a virtual
machine, and to use a virtual machine you create an image. Set up the
image how you want and be done with it, you can then deploy it thousands
of times and it is set up the way you need it.
Who is "you"?
I'm running a home server under CentOS-7,
and I'm not using a virtual machine.
Why should I?
I don't want to "deploy it thousands of times".
You is an author's you, kind of like author's we. I understand author's
you and we are going out of style, but they are very much ingrained
within me.
I mean the typical server and indicated a server environment opposed to
a home environment.
It's amazing how people assume that everyone in the world
is, or should be, running things in the same way as themselves.
I was one of the systemd haters initially but now I don't have an issue
with it. Yes it is different than what I learned,
I dislike systemd because it is much more complicated than its predecessor,
and it has no advantages in my case to make up for this.
The main advantage that was originally claimed was that it boots faster.
That is not the case on my Fedora laptop.
It is no faster, and it is much harder to work out what is happening
if something goes wrong.
It's not speed that matters to me, and I would be fine with System V
init. However it seemed at the end of the day, most of the arguments
against systemd boiled down to "we've never done it that way before" or
"It's not the UNIX way" rather than actual technical reasons why System
V should be used and systemd rejected.
One of the benefits of systemd is the dependency based parallel startup.
The same speed can often be achieved with system V init by fine tuning
when the services start but systemd does that automatically.
Speed though doesn't concern me. I almost never reboot my servers or my
desktop or laptop (I do sleep the laptop but only reboot after kernel
update)
Especially with SSDs, boot time isn't an argument for systemd - and I do
not want to convince anyone that it is better. Just that it is not
difficult to use, there are some advantages - how valuable those
advantages are depend upon what you do (author's you again, not personal
you) but it seems that these advantages have since been seen by just
about every Linux distro that has any significant market share.
Popular doesn't make it right, but it did make me rethink my objections
to it and whether or not those objections were rational. For me, I
decided that no, they weren't rational.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
