Andrei POPESCU writes:
> On Lu, 03 mar 14, 14:29:16, Gian Uberto Lauri wrote:
> > Andrei POPESCU writes:
> >
> > Systemd can help a bit in making a little easier to have tools that
> > satisfy the (not so) basic need "to have this device mounted here if
> > it is plugged, otherwise go ahead with the bootstrap" for the
> > completely tech-unsavy user, but you can achieve this with system V
> > init. If you want to do it.
>
> This shouldn't be necessary.
I meant that systemd may make things a little easier. But it will not
enable them. They are already possible, nobody cared to do it. IMHO!
> Exactly what I was trying to say. systemd may not "really" be necessary
> for us, but what about...
It seems that we disagree on many issues mostly due communication problems :).
I apologize for my poor English skills.
systemd could improve the experience of some users, i.e. by making the
boot faster.
Or the system may react better to runtime HW changes - even if I would
give the credit to udev.
> > > But, how am I going to do that for my
> > > father's laptop, which I *might* be able to access remotely?
> >
> > Excuse me, could you re-state this sentence. I am unable to understand
> > the point, sorry that is due my poor English skills.
>
> ... my father running Debian on his laptop? If he relocates to a foreign
> country, buys a 3G adapter and plugs it in what should happen?
Until there is a way to let TCP/IP packet flow, there is a solution
for this problem.
And I do not think that systemd will make the system more robust on
the long run. It could make it weaker on the short run, it is software
after all.
> > > This is a joke right? If I tell a daemon to restart I want it
> > > restarted. Now. Anything else is like the tail wagging the dog.
> >
> > Sorry, no, or I could equally say "I want an Aston Martin parked in
> > the company yard. Now and anything else is like the tail wagging the
> > dog".
>
> Actually not. As I see it the computer is a tool built to do what *I*
> say and *when* I say it, not to create more work for me. Especially if
> it's only a Simple Matter of Programming (which turns out to not be so
> simple, since it took so many years to do it).
Sorry Andrei, but there is not such thing as "Simple Matter of Programming".
Let me quote the my favourite entry from the Hacker Jargon File, v 4.0.0
------------------------------------------------------------
:programming: /n./ 1. The art of debugging a blank sheet of
paper (or, in these days of on-line editing, the art of debugging
an empty file). "Bloody instructions which, being taught, return
to plague their inventor" ("Macbeth", Act 1, Scene 7) 2. A
pastime similar to banging one's head against a wall, but with
fewer opportunities for reward. 3. The most fun you can have with
your clothes on (although clothes are not mandatory).
------------------------------------------------------------
> > And when you terminate a program you want to restart, you have to wait
> > for that program to be terminated to be sure all resources are
> > released.
>
> What if it doesn't do that and it just hangs?
If it hangs then it's time for the human brain to start working.
> > And in this systemd has no more power than a script. It has to issue
> > the stopping signal, wait for the process to die and let free the
> > resources it used, and finally start a new one.
>
> What if it just won't die? systemd's answer to that is cgroups.
Would be the automatic choice a good one? Maybe on a simple PC w/o
networked file systems...
> > And, AFAIK, if a process is not son of some other process then is son
> > of init by 'adoption'.
>
> But sysvinit is not actually used to manage processes, so this special
> power of PID 1 is wasted.
init is not meant to manage processes, just to bring the system up to the
required runlevel and to drive the shutdown.
I fear that overloading the init process with more responsabilities
would not be a good idea: more "pieces" involved, a less simple tool.
"Keep It Simple, Stupid" aka Kiss Principle. It is good in mechanic,
it is good in software.
> Debian is already late to the party. Just about every other major
> distribution/OS is already running something better than sysv-rc (and
> I'm including OpenRC in the "something better").
Frankly, at home we are almost perfectly happy with system v init, we
only feels it lacks explicit dependencies that may let do some partial
sorting on the services to start.
But is perfectly legitimate to have different opinions!
Best regards!
--
/\ ___ Ubuntu: ancient
/___/\_|_|\_|__|___Gian Uberto Lauri_____ African word
//--\| | \| | Integralista GNUslamico meaning "I can
\/ coltivatore diretto di software not install
già sistemista a tempo (altrui) perso... Debian"
Warning: gnome-config-daemon considered more dangerous than GOTO
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: https://lists.debian.org/21268.43799.710352.569...@mail.eng.it
