They suck at managing daemons, that's what the hell is wrong with them.
Init systems have "worked" for different definitions of work. There are porblems with shell scripts, they lose track of threads easily. They're slow, easy to create circular dependancies.
Take a look at the debian init positions, and see for yourself what they think are major drawbacks of sysvinit. Absolutely *no one* on the tech commitee thinks its a good idea to stay with it. As much animosity as there is between the systemd and upstart camps, no one has listed any other solution besides upstart and systemd as a first or second choice. That should tell you something.
Gnome wants to allow admins to keep track of what different users are doing and enforce permissions and what not on their utilizeation of the system.
Sounds good right? They had policykit, but determined that logind did that task better. Logind ( part of systemd) just does a better job of doing that one job. It turns out that monitoring all the processes a user creates through using a desktop is a very simular task to the more general job of monitoring a daemon and all of its processes. So it makes sense to have the same tool perform very simular tasks.
So, if you don't understand what systemd does and what gnome needs, your statment makes a *lot* of sense. But when you figure out what everything does, it just looks wrong. Why re-invent the wheel for the same task? This *is* KISS. Re-inventing the wheel is not KISS, adds bloat, duplication of effort and bugs.
Systemd handles all the difficult edge cases with init systems better than anything else. It won't start things in the wrong order, deadlocks can be detected in configurations without having to boot, It will always cleanly unmount file systems, it won't lose track of forking daemons.
As an end user of a single desktop, you're unlikely to notice a difference between upstart and systemd aside for the differences in syntax when managing daemons. The edge cases that upstart sucks at are relatively rare occurrences that I've been fortunate to avoid.
As a developer, I love the idea of systemd. I want to rewrite my ( in house, proprietary ) daemons to require it.
Basically, because upstart doesn't do the job of an init system well. SystemD does.
SystemD does also do a number of other things well. Its not monolithic in the sense that there is a single binary doing everything. Not all of the apis that connects the pieces together are guaranteed to stay stable, but they have made some promises of api stability when it makes sense.
So many things can be made better by having a really good Pid 1. And some things only make sense integrated into Pid 1.
And London is the Capitol of the UK. What does that have to do with software quality in closed source applications?
Here are a few more random things that have nothing to do with what we are talking about, devoid of any context, in case someone else wants to see them.
Trees are made out of wood. Bill Clinton didn't found Microsoft. ARM processors are more common in smartphones than MIPS processors. Debian supports multiple kernels, not just Liinux. Last year eneded on Dec 31st, 2013.
Still does not logically follow. You are making the impicit assumption that the sole determination of quality in software is the percentage of people that are paid to write it. You are totally ignoring the closed/open source variable.
They are doing well on the enterprise side, and not doing as well as they have historically on the consumer side. So their profits as a company are good. Their is a significant part of the company that is not doing well.
This is probably why they hired the guy that was in charge of the part of the company that was doing well.
I don't see how that follows. If you knew that sponsored open source projects were superior in quality to non sponsored open source projects, I don't see how that applies to non open sourced sponsored projects. It might, but its not a logical inference from the previous statement.
Just posting agian to complain about Slashdot/dice posting links to Buisness Intelligence. Terrible. Horrible. Absolutely hate it with all my being. Stop actually trying to write terrible articles and focus on your core strengths: editing story summaries terribly.
Scent sensitive autisim? I'm not familiar with that. Could you explain what that means in more detail? Do your Autisim symptoms become worse with strong scents? Or is scent sensitivity a symptom of your autisim?
Yeah, they could have gotten all of that much cheaper than 1.56 B, if that's the actual number.
In any case, their stated game plan with Moto wasn't to sell off the hardware handset division. Its was a screw up without a doubt, the only question is how much of a screw up was it.
Slashdot Mirror
I wouldn't return your request for an interview/ more details either.
Well, maybe a canyonero
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
No, it is perfectly plausable in a world filled with three eyed fish and where kids never age.
Voodoo based economics.
They gave the hydrogen a tax break, hoping that at some point it would be incentivized enough to fuse for them.
They suck at managing daemons, that's what the hell is wrong with them.
Init systems have "worked" for different definitions of work. There are porblems with shell scripts, they lose track of threads easily. They're slow, easy to create circular dependancies.
Take a look at the debian init positions, and see for yourself what they think are major drawbacks of sysvinit. Absolutely *no one* on the tech commitee thinks its a good idea to stay with it. As much animosity as there is between the systemd and upstart camps, no one has listed any other solution besides upstart and systemd as a first or second choice. That should tell you something.
https://wiki.debian.org/Debate...
Haven't you been to the theme park?
There ain't no whales.
Gnome wants to allow admins to keep track of what different users are doing and enforce permissions and what not on their utilizeation of the system.
Sounds good right? They had policykit, but determined that logind did that task better. Logind ( part of systemd) just does a better job of doing that one job. It turns out that monitoring all the processes a user creates through using a desktop is a very simular task to the more general job of monitoring a daemon and all of its processes. So it makes sense to have the same tool perform very simular tasks.
So, if you don't understand what systemd does and what gnome needs, your statment makes a *lot* of sense. But when you figure out what everything does, it just looks wrong. Why re-invent the wheel for the same task? This *is* KISS. Re-inventing the wheel is not KISS, adds bloat, duplication of effort and bugs.
Exactly.
Systemd handles all the difficult edge cases with init systems better than anything else. It won't start things in the wrong order, deadlocks can be detected in configurations without having to boot, It will always cleanly unmount file systems, it won't lose track of forking daemons.
As an end user of a single desktop, you're unlikely to notice a difference between upstart and systemd aside for the differences in syntax when managing daemons. The edge cases that upstart sucks at are relatively rare occurrences that I've been fortunate to avoid.
As a developer, I love the idea of systemd. I want to rewrite my ( in house, proprietary ) daemons to require it.
Basically, because upstart doesn't do the job of an init system well. SystemD does.
SystemD does also do a number of other things well. Its not monolithic in the sense that there is a single binary doing everything. Not all of the apis that connects the pieces together are guaranteed to stay stable, but they have made some promises of api stability when it makes sense.
So many things can be made better by having a really good Pid 1. And some things only make sense integrated into Pid 1.
Yeah, I had mod points yesterday. Not using Beta.
Oh, I don't know, probably the people complaining about the people complaining about beta are Dice Employees. Wouldn't suprise me.
Wow judging a criminal matter by what appears in a slashdot summary? I just lost the hope I didn't realize I still had for humanity.
And London is the Capitol of the UK. What does that have to do with software quality in closed source applications?
Here are a few more random things that have nothing to do with what we are talking about, devoid of any context, in case someone else wants to see them.
Trees are made out of wood.
Bill Clinton didn't found Microsoft.
ARM processors are more common in smartphones than MIPS processors.
Debian supports multiple kernels, not just Liinux.
Last year eneded on Dec 31st, 2013.
Still does not logically follow. You are making the impicit assumption that the sole determination of quality in software is the percentage of people that are paid to write it. You are totally ignoring the closed/open source variable.
They are doing well on the enterprise side, and not doing as well as they have historically on the consumer side. So their profits as a company are good. Their is a significant part of the company that is not doing well.
This is probably why they hired the guy that was in charge of the part of the company that was doing well.
I don't see how that follows. If you knew that sponsored open source projects were superior in quality to non sponsored open source projects, I don't see how that applies to non open sourced sponsored projects. It might, but its not a logical inference from the previous statement.
Just posting agian to complain about Slashdot/dice posting links to Buisness Intelligence. Terrible. Horrible. Absolutely hate it with all my being. Stop actually trying to write terrible articles and focus on your core strengths: editing story summaries terribly.
Scent sensitive autisim? I'm not familiar with that. Could you explain what that means in more detail? Do your Autisim symptoms become worse with strong scents? Or is scent sensitivity a symptom of your autisim?
No, Fox news has an agenda to push, its terrible on purpose. Slashdot is just terrible on accident.
Hmm.. I can't seem to find it in the Debian/Hurd OS repos. Guess its not ready for the big time.
I thought they tried reintroducing wolves in the lower 48. Maybe I was confused about the issues ranchers are having near yellow stone.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/E...
Yeah, people *think* he said it, but even he admitted he didn't. Which is why I didn't attribute the quote.
A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon, you're talking real money
Yeah, they could have gotten all of that much cheaper than 1.56 B, if that's the actual number.
In any case, their stated game plan with Moto wasn't to sell off the hardware handset division. Its was a screw up without a doubt, the only question is how much of a screw up was it.