On Fri, 23 Oct 2015 22:44, m.roth at 5-cent.us <m.roth at ...> wrote: > Jonathan Billings wrote: >> On Oct 23, 2015, at 9:46 AM, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: >>> James B. Byrne wrote: >>>> >>>> I am glad to discover that I am not losing my mind. I too have been >>>> rather dismayed at the perceived increase in frequency with which I >>>> must reboot my servers. I wondered whether this was simply a >>>> misconception on my part or an actual change in the environment. >>>> >>>> Apparently it is the later. >>> >>> So systemd moves Linux to more resemble Windows? >> >> No. If anything, systemd handles upgrades better than SysV init, since it >> handles re-execing better. Please stop spreading FUD. > <snip> > What FUD? It adds *binary* logfiles, readable only with a separate > program; when I restart a service, it does not *tell* me what's going on, > just worked or didn't, so I don't know, if it fails, where, the messages > from journalctl are extremely unhelpful, and when it boots, if I want to > watch, it tends to hide much info. It's much less informative in most ways > in helping me solve problems. > Well, looking back, during kernel 2.6 there was no systemd at all. But! That was the time where udev and dbus came into the boot cycle. IMHO, the intrinsics between glibc (always a cause for refresh of initrd and full reboot) and udev where the start of the "reboot often". Later on came dbus from the pure app-message-bus to the monster (kdbus?) that it is now, adding in its own dreg of dependencies and making the boot cycle unclean in itself. The mess we have now, is not the work of just one change. What was the rationale to get udev into boot? -- Handling the ever changing mess of plugable, switchable hardware. Not born and bred for servers, but for mobiles (phones, tablets, laptops). Who was the one that decided that "one-size-fits-all" and put that into server environment? What was the rationale to let dbus near the system start at all? -- Again mobile development. Same as before who was the one that thought, "nice, lets fuck up the servers even more with that". Systemd was just the latest development, and not the worst. Yes, it could have gone better, and some of the devs have had more head-in-the-clouds than feet-on-the-ground. Looking back, systemd is the only "big" change since 2.6 that makes sense for servers. It's surrounding scene, however, does not make much sense for servers. Journald is a mess, but solveable -- install a "real" syslogd and get on with life. The mess that is networking, well, that could have / should have gone better. Lets not cast out the babe with the wash-water, through. That the difference between Linux servers and MS-Windows server got smaller is a matter of both sides. The difference between a MS-Win 2k server and a MS-Win 2016 server is much more than just 16 years. MS-Win 2016 kann be headless. A break-trough, 2012 was partly there. What was the jump forward for linux servers in this 16 years? We have lost some of the original Unix way: every tool should do one thing, and should do it right, be as small and as fast as possible. MicroSoft seems to have learned from its errors. Linux, well, atm we make them, and en mass. - Yamaban. PS: PHP devs should keep an eye on PHP 7. That will be ugly for every one that ignores the warning signs. Operators and Declarations esp.