Joel Roth via Dng said on Sat, 18 May 2024 09:48:55 -1000

>Here's another good read:
>
>systemd, 10 years later: a historical and technical retrospective
>
>https://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2020/05/02/0/

Euuuuuu, that guy again? Man, I thought I'd heard the last of Mr.
Uselessd, an apologist for the architecture of systemd, who fielded his
own named-to-fail subset of systemd.

He really loves to hold forth, doesn't he? He's always been that way.

The clown mentions daemontools twice, once as "their own preferred
alternatives like a hypothetical on-demand service launcher" and once
as something recommended by the Busybox guy circa 2010. Nowhere does he
mention that daemontools was available in 2001, ready to plug into
/etc/inittab with a simple "SV:12345:respawn:/command/svscanboot", and
doing parallel instantiation, long before anyone else. This clown
continued and still continues the false-choice fallacy of systemd vs
sysvinit vs upstart. This guy raised our hopes only to disappoint:

https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2014/10/msg01849.html

Continue forward in the thread, and notice how he "uselessly" got our
hopes up when we should have been looking for alternate distros (or
BSD).

While we're mentioning init disappointments, second place goes to Nosh,
an early systemd knockoff that now brings systemd complexity to BSD.
These complexificationists make me want to barf. Bring me my runit, or
for complete features in a sane init architecture, s6. Or even OpenRC
or sysvinit or Busybox. Just spare me the bus intercommunicating
complexification of systemd and its wannabe subsets.

SteveT

Steve Litt

Autumn 2023 featured book: Rapid Learning for the 21st Century
http://www.troubleshooters.com/rl21