On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 14:04:53 +0100 Adrien CLERC <adr...@antipoul.fr> wrote:
> >>> And SysVInit just works well and it is simply enough. It has much less > >>> dependencies than systemd. Do not make unneeded weight on people to learn > >>> systemd in addition to shell scripts, if systemd is powerful that also > >>> means there is a lot to learn. I really doubt non-standards task can be > >>> solved with systemd without shell scripts (or similar), and every serious > >>> UNIX admin must know shell programming anyway. > >> This is like saying "A horse drawn carrage works well enough, why do you > >> need an airplane". > > You need an airplane because Earth is 40,000 km in round and because you > > have a reason to travel to a distant location. Or just you want to do some > > sport? But I know my possibilities and I wouldn't spend my money on an > > airplane just for sport, to produce an airplane you have to take raw > > materials out of this planet, you have to spend power, human time, make > > pollution, etc. > > > That's exactly how I feel when I want to create a small daemon using a > SystemV init script. I feel like building an airplane from scratch while > I would just use a bike. Use /etc/init.d/skeleton and you'll see it's very simple. > > Introducing the concept of "possibilities" is interesting: sometimes, > you need some choices in your available tools to perform the same task, > depending on your current need… > > Adrien Shell is a programming language. It cannot be less flexible then config files. But there is also an interesting point. We are currently not using BASH features for init scripts. As I remember, BASH was bloated or smt, but certainly less than systemd is. -- 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/20131106174319.0535e...@eunet.rs
