On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 08:22:41PM +0100, Bernhard R. Link wrote: > I think noone claims that systemd would not be the superior design > in a world where there is bug-free, perfect software prepared to handle > every possible situation it will be thrown into.
Yes, but this is valid for any other software design. But I think systemd *does* a very good job in trying to cover every possible usecase because it was actually designed with modern hard- and software environments in mind, like embedded or big servers which weren't simply existant back when the original System V Init design was conceived. > As our world has not > yet seen bug-free software handling every single situation the authors > did not think about properly, the expectation of what happens if one > runs into a not-yet fixed bug is an important issue for many people. Absolutely. But again, this is true for any software and this is *especially* true for old designs which couldn't cover certain setups which simply didn't exist back then. You know the famous quote: "640 kB ought to be enough!" > Free software has always been a way to avoid being helplessly at the > mercy of some software. So handing over the basics of your computer > to a much more complex system can be quite frightening for many > people around here. Yes, I see your point. But again, what I said before, how many people are actually digging into such low-level code? Someone who is jumping into kernel or plumberland development always has to have a certain background knowledge. It requires more skills and experience as opposed to writing desktop applications or smart phone apps. But do you really think that we should keep every part of the system brain-dead simple that everyone understands at the cost of reliablity and performance? I mean, how many people do actually really understand how the FireWire stack in the kernel works and is designed, how many people understand the underlyings of gcc and so on? I see your argument about keeping stuff simple, but again, if you want to be able to solve more complex tasks with your computer, the software on it itself has to become more complex. It's almost as if we should never add features to the kernel because it becomes too complex for newbies. I'm very sure Linus would flip everyone off who comes with this certain mindset. > Claiming that it will work for everyone and that > anyone not being able to name a problem existing now has no arguments > does not help. Do System V Init or Upstart work in EVERY single use case? Do you know that systemd actually works much better with systems which have high load or are shared among many users (because it allows ressource control by using cgroups). You're putting the arguments the wrong way around. It is the old System V Init which actually covers only a very limited use case while systemd offers a much more flexible design, ranging from embedded stuff up to very big machines. > It only makes sure people are reassured that systemd is > not for them. Combine that with vocal demands that it should be the > only allowed init process in a short time frame makes sure that there > is a big opposition (which will look for you like it has no arguments, > as no real arguments against systemd are accepted.) Yes, I do accept vocals against systemd, but only if these are actually valid arguments. Because I want software development to be driven on technical merits and not on sympathies against or for certain people neither the stance to reject any modern developments. Adrian -- .''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz : :' : Debian Developer - glaub...@debian.org `. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaub...@physik.fu-berlin.de `- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121129201402.gc21...@physik.fu-berlin.de
