On 04/09/2017 04:30 AM, J Martin Rushton wrote:
On 09/04/17 05:39, Anthony K wrote:
According to "Arthur Schopenhauer":
"All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed.
Second, it is violently opposed.
Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
All ideas, true or false, follow those stages, but one hopes that the
false ones are eventually derided and toppled.
I must admit that I skipped through the first and second stages - I
never found creating init scripts a joy and instead opted to write my
own scripts that I launched via inittab. As such, I welcomed the
simplicity systemd's service files without fuss.
So, at which stage are you in w/ regards to adopting systemd? Are you
still ridiculing it, violently opposed to it, or have you mellowed to it?
Accepting it as a fait accompli. It makes life much harder for no
obvious gain, but short of creating one's own distro we seem to be stuck
with it. To answer your question, a combination of proposition 1 and
the first part of proposition 3.
For those of us with (in my case) over 30 years in the industry, reading
init scripts is trivial and at least we can see what is going on and fix
problems quickly. Some vague, poorly documented, data file which is
interpreted by a black box is the sort of joy one expects from the
murkier regions of Redmond not the sunnier climes of Carolina.
I agree. I never had a problem with init scripts. Anyone who
understood bash/sh could fairly easily come to grips with init scripts.
I have no idea where to look for whatever starts up services with
systemd. What language is systemd written in...? no idea. Yes, I
tried reading docs, but they're so vague and inscrutable that I gave
up. E.g., what is a "unit"? Could they have picked a word more vague?
What does "unit" tell us which "thing" doesn't? Basically, a service is
either running or stopped... so what is "static"? "Static" means the
opposite of "moving" or "dynamic". How does "static" describe a service?
In short, although computer geeks generally aren't known for being good
at documentation, in the commercial world at any rate. But this is
GNU/Linux. We rely on online documentation and the open source
community to figure out problems and make improvements. Lacking sensible
documentation, it's hard to figure out problems. If problems can't be
figured out, we're faced with problematic systems. And who's going to
tolerate that for long? How is that an improvement over Redmondware?
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
