On 04/09/2017 04:30 AM, J Martin Rushton wrote: > On 09/04/17 05:39, Anthony K wrote: >> According to "Arthur Schopenhauer": >> >> "All truth passes through three stages. >> First, it is ridiculed. >> Second, it is violently opposed. >> Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." > All ideas, true or false, follow those stages, but one hopes that the > false ones are eventually derided and toppled. > > >> I must admit that I skipped through the first and second stages - I >> never found creating init scripts a joy and instead opted to write my >> own scripts that I launched via inittab. As such, I welcomed the >> simplicity systemd's service files without fuss. >> >> So, at which stage are you in w/ regards to adopting systemd? Are you >> still ridiculing it, violently opposed to it, or have you mellowed to it? >> > Accepting it as a fait accompli. It makes life much harder for no > obvious gain, but short of creating one's own distro we seem to be stuck > with it. To answer your question, a combination of proposition 1 and > the first part of proposition 3. > > For those of us with (in my case) over 30 years in the industry, reading > init scripts is trivial and at least we can see what is going on and fix > problems quickly. Some vague, poorly documented, data file which is > interpreted by a black box is the sort of joy one expects from the > murkier regions of Redmond not the sunnier climes of Carolina. > I agree. I never had a problem with init scripts. Anyone who understood bash/sh could fairly easily come to grips with init scripts. I have no idea where to look for whatever starts up services with systemd. What language is systemd written in...? no idea. Yes, I tried reading docs, but they're so vague and inscrutable that I gave up. E.g., what is a "unit"? Could they have picked a word more vague? What does "unit" tell us which "thing" doesn't? Basically, a service is either running or stopped... so what is "static"? "Static" means the opposite of "moving" or "dynamic". How does "static" describe a service? In short, although computer geeks generally aren't known for being good at documentation, in the commercial world at any rate. But this is GNU/Linux. We rely on online documentation and the open source community to figure out problems and make improvements. Lacking sensible documentation, it's hard to figure out problems. If problems can't be figured out, we're faced with problematic systems. And who's going to tolerate that for long? How is that an improvement over Redmondware?