Not half as bad as what you've got.
You don't know about the music industry, that is okay. Here is how it works: the album sales go almost entirely to the record company. The artist might see $1 per album.
The artist keeps most of the performance revenue. This is why there are old rockers like the Rolling Stones who keep playing from their deathbeds. It is great money, and the only great money the performers have access to.
And the radio money is divided between the songwriter and the record company. Lots of musicians who are well known but not in the top-xx list actually make their money from being the songwriter on their own songs that get radio play. Or, very commonly, all their money comes from being the songwriter on covers! For example the song Jet Airliner was written and recorded by Paul Pena on one of his albums, and then the cover by the Steve Miller Band, who made it a radio hit. Paul Pena was literally living off those songwriter royalties as his health declined.
Artists don't make anything significant from album sales. Sorry you guessed wrong.
I say this with feeling: You are an idiot.
That feeling you're feeling is fanboiyitis.
You just claimed your SysV init scripts are helping your software take advantage of cgroups. Then you called me names. Derrrrrrrrrr!
It is just lies and handwaving, "an enormous amount" of "unrelated" software... except, not.
Your best example is that different vim meta-packages conflict? Yeah, generally with meta-packages, you choose one. And then you can also install an extra version from source in your home dir. That is the normal way to install 2. Sounds like user error. You set it up so you have to use sudo, with no backup access, and then removed sudo, and blamed systemd? Exactly.
For many software in many situations, it is not optional , see http://sporkbox.us/blog/?r=pag... for just one small example.
Not sure how X will turn out.
Whereas support for SysV init is naturally optional as I explained earlier.
One optional is not different than the other optional. I can assure you, as somebody who read the story, that it is "optional" as in "optional" and there is nothing about any of it that would create a technical reason for it to not be optional. It is like saying that if X is ported to OSX, then Linux users will have to switch to macs. It is complete nonsense. Conspiracy-theory level nonsense. In fact, an optional feature being accused of having some plot to become mandatory... that is a conspiracy theory! lolol
If you read your own link you'll find there is no conspiracy at all, arch is just a sucky distro that doesn't have the dependency tree mapped out well enough for users to choose the combination of packages they want. It then goes into a bunch of personal attack against the author. Who wrote the software does not matter; the software runs the same either way. So as soon as you see those types of attacks, you should really be able to recognize that you're being offered a clique-attack, and not a real technical objection.
You link seems to suggest that a software developer should not be allowed opinions; should not be allowed to push for distros to standardize on their ideas. You'd be out of developers if you enforced that consistently. But as is fitting of a clique-attack, they only set this standard for the one person they're circling around.
If you think Arch Linux discourages choice, my advice is to use Fedora. It is funny too, since the guy you hate so much works for RedHat. But RedHat's distros have the time (and money) to build out the dependency trees so that you DO have choice. And as a RedHat employee, why would you blame Arch sucking on him???
Go look up how old SysV init scripts are, and then ask yourself if those decades count as "any time soon" from when it was adopted. It is silly to start the measurement now, after decades of sysadmins complaining about the poor feature set. You spend decades being told, "we'll have something better someday" and then when it finally arrives and works and does all the stuff that sysadmins wanted (cgroups, better logging, etc) then people are worrying if it is too "soon." Well geeeeeeeeeee, why wouldnn't it be late? Seems like a fake complaint to me. Not sure how you can compare it to cars with joysticks, which drivers haven't been asking for.
Also, it is very telling about your attitude that instead of addressing what sysadmins say is good about systemd, you just call it names like "octopus." Yes, I'll agree they didn't request any of the features using pejoratives. People who value a feature set usually discuss it using real terms. So the feature requests are not "octopus" but "modular centralized logging" and "better process groups" and "parallel service startup" and "effective service dependencies." All of these things are directly related to what SysV init does too. Just because it is less effective at them, you count it as doing one thing. Except there is more than one thing that has to happen right there, and SysV init does more than one thing too.
The KISS argument is especially daft. How is a mishmash pile of init and scripts and logging somehow more simple? Every part is complicated because it is a giant "pile." And process management is complicated with SysV by the complete lack of needed security and management features. cgroups reduces overall system complexity by providing a means of managing process groups. cgroups are a new feature in the linux kernel. It exists for real reasons. I guess you think it would reduce complexity and keep it simple to just tack on cgroups to what SysV init already did, right? Oh, wait, you only want it to do strictly one thing. Except it already does more than one. So just, no cgroups, right?
None of your complaints are actual problems with systemd. It is just repeated propaganda. And nobody using a software package cares if you don't need all the features, like faster boot time. Isn't it rather freakin' obvious that that is a feature that is going to be valuable for many use cases? You don't have that use case, fine. And if you did, would you still be against software that provides it?
You really think systemd makes it so humans can't troubleshoot? Wow, those sysadmins celebrating it must be alien superheros. Oh, wait, no. We're humaans after all. Trust me, humans without an irrational hatred of systemd have no trouble at all troubleshooting it. There are even cheat sheets that map the old commands, to the new equivalent ones. It would be a funny set of arguments to listen to if somebody claimed that youngsters who learn on systemd would have an easy time troubleshooting an old SysV box, based on this claim that SysV is more amenable to human troubleshooting. I guess you'd have to resort to comparisons that claim that SysV is even easier than DOS, because learning bash scripting and the standard SysV sh libraries is so much easier than learning that an
You do understand that optional support for systemd doesn't have anything to do with requiring it, so it wouldn't impact OSes that don't use it... right?
Talk about d' oh! lolol
I don't know why these anti-systemd posts get upvoted so much.
Because these days most slashdot users don't even know a sysadmin.
Homeless people value rapid startup time more than almost anybody, because the library limits that number of hours patrons can use the free wi-fi per day. And homeless linux users usually have ancient, dilapidated laptops that are considered by others to be past end-of-life.
So I think the homeless guy has a legit use case for systemd, and people who want to choose something else should just leave him alone and let him have his systemd. Nobody is trying to force them to use it.
It is not up to you to decide if it is inevitable that others will choose systemd.
Who is trying to force who? People who hate systemd seem to hate it so much they want to destroy it, wipe it from the face of the Earth! systemd supporters don't really care what other people use, they want a better, modernized init running on their own systems. It is normal to have distros that would adopt a new init, and others that don't. There is no reason to be against systemd just because you don't want to choose it.
I use both every day. Emacs is the best code editor, and vim is the best system config editor. I've been using both for 15+ years.
And BTW, I'm running systemd and it didn't eat my cat or whatever when I use an old SysV initscript. Actually, it has backwards compatibility for that! While I do really like systemd, I haven't converted any of my own initscripts. Mostly because I'm the only one using them. If they were in released software, well, it is normal that SysV get replaced eventually and it is a small burden to write a dozen lines of code every 20-30 years when there is a large scale shift to a new startup system. Especially when most software doesn't need startup support!
No hatred is stronger than ignorant hatred.
So now your real complaint comes out. They rejected your contributions because your contributions were using the old system it replaced. No, they aren't going to want to roll in your SysV init scripts. But there is compatibility with them for the users. You can still use your init scripts, and write new ones.
You're just butthurt that they didn't accept your patch, that didn't even attempt to use the same technologies and languages that they're using. Fail.
yeah systemd showed up at my door with a baseball bat and demanded that I switch to a distro that uses it!
Sorry, false alarm, it was just the pizza guy.
This is actually ignorant lies. It is modular, but nobody is writing alternatives because the actual individuals parts are actually well enough written that they're hard to replace, so no distros do. And users don't make these choices, they just choose between distros.
It isn't "demonstrably" worse at anything, it is "subjectively" worse to people who don't like it. Most objective metrics, it is better at everything. Maybe you still don't like it for other reasons. Maybe those are great reasons. But no need to be dishonest about what type of choices are being made.
Sorry newbie, without a UID you're clearly in disguise. Busted!
Anyways, it was the old guard who was against linux back then. Linux was the new OS, trying new things. You try to place it as having been in opposition to windoze, but it really in opposition to commercial *nix. That end users who use it would otherwise have been stuck on windows was related to the high price of commercial *nix, that's it. Everybody I knew in the 90s that hated windows also at some point wished OS/2 had had available software, that Amiga hadn't crashed and burned, and that an unknown rich uncle would send them a fancy *nix workstation for Christmas.
The funny thing is to see somebody now claiming that those linux rebels were the old guard all along, and that therefore 20 years later they should be against anything new.
I remember in 2001 Linus said in an interview that he hoped people weren't still using Linux 10 years later, because he hoped something newer and better would come along.
The real solution of course to these disputes would be to have better distros and to have distros that make choices like SysV init and then commit to not changing any philosophical decisions or base technologies... ever. So then when new stuff comes out, people who use front-edge-following distros will have that new stuff thrown right at them, but people who use Stable distros would only ever see the new stuff by changing distros. As it is now, you can never choose a distro and be sure it will still meet your (unchanged!) needs in the future.