PaulNM wrote:
My own personal/technical thoughts have gone back and forth on systemd.
However even when I firmly believed that is was the wrong way to go and
would cause major issues down the line, it was still clear to me that
many people were seriously going overboard.
Could be.
That said, I understand and agree that there are technical downsides as
well. For example, there is a little too much integration within
systemd itself, however that's mostly a result of the maintainer's
attitudes/viewpoints.
Frankly, I'm a lot more worried about operational downsides than
technical ones.
Systemd might be the greatest thing since sliced bread - but I've got an
operational collection of servers to maintain, that I'm going to have to
upgrade eventually - and everything I've been reading just reinforces
that I'm going to have to spend days, maybe weeks, pouring through every
piece of carefully configured software and make adjustments to all my
init routines - and figure out how to keep services running while doing so.
Udev alone caused tremendous hassles a while back. Systemd is sure
looking like a nightmare.
It would be one thing if I could reliably continue running systemv-init,
add systemd-shim to support packages that require systemd, and deal with
everything else as time allows. But that is looking less and less
likely to just work.
I find myself looking more and more at either slackware or LFS, or
moving to either one of the BSDs or SmartOS - a platform where servers
still seem to count.
No matter what, a huge expenditure of time and effort - just to get back
to the status quo of normal operations.
Sigh....
Miles Fidelman
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
--
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/5425ead1.2090...@meetinghouse.net
