Once upon a time, Always Learning <centos@xxxxxxxxxxx> said:
> Is systemd the beneficial, reliable, useful and workable "improved init
> system" or something with circa 275,000 lines of coding compared to
> init's circa 10,000 lines ? Things I have learned in programming
> include modular is better than monolithic, and less code better than
> M$-style bloatware which systemd appears to be.
You should also have learned in programming the lines of code is a
virtually useless measuring stick. OMG, the kernel has over four
million lines of code! BREAK IT UP!
There is always a trade-off between modularity and functionality.
Sometimes modularity comes with a functionality and/or complexity cost.
PID 1 on a Unix-like system really does have special properties, and so
some functionality can only be implemented (at least in a practical
fashion) in PID 1.
Would you rather a bunch of that "magic" of PID 1 that systemd handles
get shoved into the kernel (so that PID 1 isn't so special)?
> Just what is Fedora's and Red Hat's Plan B when the revolt against
> systemd escalates ? Whom is going to apologise for fouling-up Red
> Hat's EL and our beloved Centos ?
Yawn. I haven't seen that there's a "revolt" except for a vocal
minority. Some of the "no change" arguments sound very much similar to
the SELinux, xfs/ext4/ext3, Apache 2, gcc/egcs, glibc, ELF, etc.
arguments over the years. A vocal group doesn't like change, argues
against it, and presents itself as the voice of the silent majority
(that somehow keep upgrading to new versions with all the terrible
changes).
--
Chris Adams <linux@xxxxxxxxxxx>
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
