IBM is not a good example as
IBM has been imploding for years, with layoffs every year.
See Robert X Cringely for details.
Ibm's Banal Management (see what I did there) has seen the turret turning towards them for years, they just never thought it would point at them. IBM will Watsonize the shit out of management while they cry of the 'value' they bring to the company.
I'll defer to you, say your right and give Linus the benefit of the doubt. It does not change that it's an uncivilized way to act. Not taking it personally doesn't make it any more civilized.
I know it's all sensitive, touchy/feelly and new age to pretend that an attack on an action carried out on a person is an attack on the person directly
I think it's having the presence of mind to be dignified. Bringing emotion to a conversation about code makes it personal, which means a person receiving such a message has every right to take it personally. If they don't take it personally, it makes them all the more dignified. "Treat others how you would have them treat you" is hardly new age.
to be frank it's a very juvenile way of looking at things that we really should grow out of.
I don't think it is juvenile. I think, when Linus grows out of it, he is going to feel increasingly embarrassed at not having the decorum to act like a leader, instead of just complaining when people don't listen to him because he doesn't.
Interesting that we got here because I agreed with you to not take that behaviour personally, it would seem from two completely different points of view.
Okay. How do you make sure that those scripts are parallelized? Write the rc scripts to be sufficiently clever, or does init give you some special help here?
use/etc/inittab in that case and yes, make them sufficiently clever.
Okay, but you only get _three_ ondemand runlevels. From the man pages:
The only difference I can see between an ondemand runlevel and a regular runlevel is you remain in your current numeric runlevel when you instruct init to trigger the ondemand runlevel.
Yes, so you can trigger it as many times as you want and have as many entries as you want.
Also, unless I'm way off base, you don't get automatic ondemand runlevel switching, you have to trigger it with telinit or similar. I'm pretty sure that this means that your service start scripts will need to know to call 'telinit a' or whatever to start up their dependencies. And if you ever change which init runlevel (ondemand or otherwise) those dependencies live in, you'll need to update all affected startup scripts, right?
yes, they should know that, you can do it multiple times and I would abstract that into a configuration file.
Am I missing something here, or do you have to do all the heavy lifting in regards to dependency management (and dependency graph maintenance) with an inittab-based service start system... and are only provided between three and ten runlevels with which to define dependency sets?
daemons should be smart enough not to do something dumb, like consume all cpu on respawning. If a dependency is not ready, then wait for it to be ready or check what other dependencies *are* ready. That's not dependency management, it's coding the behaviour of your daemon with intent to operate.
Other than that, your use case is fiddly, can you be more specific about what you are running?, as it sounds more like a problem of code design.
The alcohol lobby does not want the recreational use competing against their alcohol sales and the pharmaceutical lobby does not want the medicinal use competing against their drug sales.
I've got no idea how you've managed to get that out of this situation. It appears to me as if you have it completely backwards and that "different perspective" appears to be very contrived.
He is not attacking the idea, he is attacking the person. I understand why he is pissed off, because of how many machines it will fuck up, a totally valid criticism. You don't take it personally because it would be like taking personally a shark trying to eat you, it's just what they are. No one wants to be swimming with a shark when it is hungry though.
Torvalds has a particular vision of what the kernel is and how it should behave. When people do something that interferes with his vision in an unfavourable way he reacts to it almost automatically, you see it all the time, it's impulse control. It's understandable, you don't *have* to take it personally, it's just who they are.
That's what you see when you don't take it personally, the person's message and how they are, because you are in control of your reactions without seeing things through the lens of your own emotion.
We've got Trump saying what is on his mind no matter who he offends all over the media (among many others) and you think Linus has lost it?
On the contrary, I think Linus is a very sane person. I think in time he will see that his attitude is damaging to his vision of the kernel and that when he comes to realise and step beyond his own behaviour he will be much more effective - as will the people around him because they won't have anxiety interfering with their coding.
Trump is a completely contrived character. A psychopath, dressed up as a real estate mogul, dressed up as a potential statesman. People get off on Donald trumpeting his rhetoric because they think they can be him one day.
Usually it's because the critic (Linus in this case) isn't able to seperate their own emotions from their criticisms of an idea
Seriously?
You actually wrote that?
Yes, are you criticising me or the idea? Many people don't take a minute to think about what is really important about their communication and allow their emotions to take over.
Did you read the post above at all or just "skim" and reply after seeing a few key words?
Yes, I read the thread before responding. I respect your opinion, I think it is only half the story. I think people who can't separate their message from their emotions are essentially unconscious retards who are unable to take responsibility for the manner of their communications or the consequences.
I was writing about THE EXACT OPPOSITE PROBLEM of people who read the criticisms of an idea mistaking it for a personal attack, for extra laughs in this case they are mistaking it for an attack on a person that is not them.
I was writing about THE EXACT OPPOSITE PERSPECTIVE of people who open their mouth before thinking about what their message is really about and lampooning their own valid criticisms with emotions they don't take a moment to control. You wouldn't speak to a stranger like that without expecting aggression.
Unfortunately we all do it to some extent
Not as such
Well we will have to agree to disagree on that one because I think the difference is being self aware.
however dealing with volatile people that can't control their emotions
Now that is a bit of a stretch. It's not as is we get a "Linus was angry" story every year.
Sure, I like Linus. He seems very mild mannered. I think his work is very important to a lot of professionals, but he makes his supporters look foolish when he flips the bird at a camera and sneers. He can be how he wants to be, however if he is unable to take ownership of his emotions it is hardly surprising that he will continue to have these issues, where his message is lost on how he says it.
I do excuse it. He is attacking the mistake of the person and not the person. Taking such stuff personally is ridiculous
I think that's a thing about geeks/nerds. If they see something that is stupid, they just say so. Most of the time there is no filter or consideration of the person behind the idea and, the effort they put into an idea, but don't intend it to come across as something personal. Usually it's because the critic (Linus in this case) isn't able to seperate their own emotions from their criticisms of an idea. Their code may be beautiful but their interactions are not and conflict arises.
Unfortunately we all do it to some extent however, I think the thing you have to look out for is when you start being an asshole most of the time because it puts people in the 'fuck you' mode, they don't listen to you anymore and, use BUG_ON. I'd imagine that he had some input as to who would be on the team so if they are morons, doesn't he share some blame for their actions?
These guys rise to a level of Assholiness where no one questions them anymore and they stop evolving. I'm not making a character judgment here, I've certainly been an asshole from time to time when I am working to realize a vision. What I saying is that being that asshole held me back where I was, so I wonder what guys like this can achieve if they have people rallying behind them, instead of them thinking 'hey this guy is gonna act like a jerk if I do something they don't like'.
Dealing with morons is frustrating however dealing with volatile people that can't control their emotions is too. No one gets what they want because a lack of charm inspires all the wrong things.
I've made several requests for systemd proponents to supply a use case that SysV initd could not support and haven't received a satisfactory reply to this purely technical question.
Secure, efficient, centralized logging.
I don't agree that is a use case for initd or systemd, I have issues with some of the failure modes.
Whilst there are some features of journalctl that I like, it again replaces generic knowledge about grep, awk and sed with specialist knowledge of systemd. In terms of the failure modes, with the binary logging format you can loose whatever is in the capture buffer is on a system restart and you never see the final error message that crashed the system. With processes that generate a lot of logging you now have systemd handling large volumes of log messages with everything else it does.
When your processes write to filesystems you can sync the fs buffer and still have the very last bytes of the message written to log where you can figure out the issue that caused the system to fail, or decide if you want a different filesystem to separate log activity to manage disk throughput. Finally, having log secured, efficient and centralized is a matter of design. Having it centralized also means it can become a bottleneck.
> rc scripts are only meant to prepare the system for entries in/etc/inittab, yet everyone tries to get everything done in rc, which serializes the Linux boot process. A parallell boot is completely achievable by using initd properly.
rc systems (like OpenRC) can get away with using one init(8) runlevel because they have pseudo-runlevels as well as service dependency handling.
inittab only provides you with _three_ ondemand runlevels: 'a', 'b', and 'c', so every significant service set change must be through a runlevel transition. It _also_ looks like you only have between four and seven runlevels (2, 3, 4, 5, ( and maybe 7, 8, and 9)) to play with.
A runlevel change isn't processed for a b or c, only their processes executed. You could use it for your use case but I don't think it would be the most appropriate way. An event handler is a good candidate for that one, I think.
In your use case I would customize runlevel 4. It will work eith way, depending on if you want to manage the VPNs or you want the system to.
How do you handle service dependency requirements in inittab? For instance: At one of my sites I create persistent TUN devices with well-known names used by a set of unprivileged OpenVPN daemons. If those TUN devices are not up before the OpenVPN daemons start, then the daemons will fail, as they're not running as root and cannot create the TUN devices themselves.
Is there some way to handle these dependency requirement without writing and launching your own dependency handler (or altering the service with the dependency to -itself- check to ensure the dependency is started)?
I would configur init like this:
First, establishing the TUN devices is the system task that should be performed by the rc scripts of runlevel 4. If they fail then the system does not enter that runlevel.
The second part is/etc/inittab is configured with a per line entry for each open VPN. Dynamic VPN is out of scope here. Each entry refers to a shell script that exits on failure. The entry for each VPN is set to "respawn".
When runlevel 4 is ready then the TUN devices are ready. You can configure your rc script to not exit or timeout depending on how you manage failure below the TUN device level (hardware or kernel level perhaps).
When runlevel 4 is running the VPNs are each respawned if they fail automatically, by init. You might also chain init states so you can have have hypervisors stay running between states but you want to control the TUN/VPN setup/teardown.
Assume that you're planning for a system that runs ten different services that each have a couple of _different_ services that must be started (which -themselves- have some _other_ dependencies) before the first service with the dependency can start.
Well that is where I would incorporate the on demand runlevels and set those processes up with their own entries in/etc/inittab set to "ondemand".
Though for a long time I've thought that initd could really use a services manager. That's actually what I thought systemd was in the first places.
Why not do your own research instead? Go and learn systemd and then compare and write up a nice unbiased report for us all to read.
I have been learning systemd and have more and more criticisms of it as I learn more. I have test systems set up with systemd and a bunch of middleware that we used to integrate with initd.
In my experiences systemd replaces a lot of general knowledge you can apply elsewhere (like shell scripting and regular expressions) with specific knowledge about systemd's and its properties, so I'm unsure what a report would achieve considering new capabilities are added to systemd all the time.
Frankly I think I would rather spend my energy on writing some adjuncts to initd (like enable and disable) that make it more accessible. I'm open to suggestions.
Wow - thanks for commenting here and welcome. Please excuse the rude ACs.
I'm curious about the using space debris as fuel, if I read that right? If magnesium is the top "fuel" can it use something like aluminium and have a lower specific impulse?
I think Cmdr Taco is jealous of Dr Neumann's beard!
I've made several requests for systemd proponents to supply a use case that SysV initd could not support and haven't received a satisfactory reply to this purely technical question. I was interested in what systemd could offer over initd. I find systemd proponents are overly veherment in their criticisms of initd proponents.
I sense this comes from an inability to address the issues raised and, perhaps a mindset that anyone who has an appreciation for initd's elegant power will simply be bulldozed into irrelevance. I think systemd's criticism of the rc scripts that starts a linux based system is valid criticism however we have to keep in mind that they were devised by Red Hat. It is dealing with rc shell scripts that are the brunt of the justification for systemd.
In that sense the unitd solution is tidy but also reveals the justification to replace initd is not based on a full understanding of its capabilities, or even an understanding of was it is, a process manager. rc scripts are only meant to prepare the system for entries in/etc/inittab, yet everyone tries to get everything done in rc, which serializes the Linux boot process. A parallell boot is completely achievable by using initd properly. I know there is more to it, like events and messaging, I'm just citing one example.
Yet I've never seen a Linux distro that's utilized initd's/etc/inittab file properly. Especially a Red Hat system. They don't use initd properly, the rc scripts are bloated with rewrites of what initd already does, and now we're replacing initd, keh? initd has yet to be utilized fully on modern linux systems.
Criticisms of sco the company aside: sco *as a distribution of unix* had an interesting adjunct feature to initd, the 'enable' and 'disable' command that managed entries in/etc/inittab, where you would configure the characteristics of the system you were running. Franky I think this is functionality is essentially
sed -i -e '/someProcess/ s/:on:/:off:/'/etc.inittab ; kill -1 1
I think initd would make a lot more sense to more people if this functionality had been available in Linux from the beginning. It is true that initd is beguiling in terms of it's simplicity wrt its power, but it is also very worthwhile. It is supposed to be small as that is where the skill is expressed.
initd is where you design the characteristics of the system, it is not an event manager and all the other things systemd is supposed to be. Something that does all the functionality systemd has, belongs as an inittab enty, not as the first process the kernel runs.
The point of a bug like this is not that it is a big deal itself, the big deal is the failure mode systemd has been revealed to have due to its complexity. This the type of concern I have about systemd, what else can trigger such a failure mode. I have seen initd in a variety of failure modes and not once has it ever consumed all system resources and disconnected running processes.
Now we've seen systemd do something that initd can't.
That is still a bad idea. Not as bad as that of a wrist-worn one, but still bad.
Why? Why is it a bad idea to acquire data on the performance of my body when I train? I have to make weight to fight and cramping can mean I loose anywhere between 5-30mins of training time.
Slashdot Mirror
IBM is not a good example as IBM has been imploding for years, with layoffs every year. See Robert X Cringely for details.
Ibm's Banal Management (see what I did there) has seen the turret turning towards them for years, they just never thought it would point at them. IBM will Watsonize the shit out of management while they cry of the 'value' they bring to the company.
I am indispensable because everyone wants my talents and it's all about me.
Phones don't kill people, their stupid lack of impulse control while crossing the road does.
I couldn't care less about your phrase, except I did and replied.
He is attacking the actions of the person.
I'll defer to you, say your right and give Linus the benefit of the doubt. It does not change that it's an uncivilized way to act. Not taking it personally doesn't make it any more civilized.
I know it's all sensitive, touchy/feelly and new age to pretend that an attack on an action carried out on a person is an attack on the person directly
I think it's having the presence of mind to be dignified. Bringing emotion to a conversation about code makes it personal, which means a person receiving such a message has every right to take it personally. If they don't take it personally, it makes them all the more dignified. "Treat others how you would have them treat you" is hardly new age.
to be frank it's a very juvenile way of looking at things that we really should grow out of.
I don't think it is juvenile. I think, when Linus grows out of it, he is going to feel increasingly embarrassed at not having the decorum to act like a leader, instead of just complaining when people don't listen to him because he doesn't.
Interesting that we got here because I agreed with you to not take that behaviour personally, it would seem from two completely different points of view.
use /etc/inittab in that case and yes, make them sufficiently clever.
Yes, so you can trigger it as many times as you want and have as many entries as you want.
yes, they should know that, you can do it multiple times and I would abstract that into a configuration file.
daemons should be smart enough not to do something dumb, like consume all cpu on respawning. If a dependency is not ready, then wait for it to be ready or check what other dependencies *are* ready. That's not dependency management, it's coding the behaviour of your daemon with intent to operate.
Other than that, your use case is fiddly, can you be more specific about what you are running?, as it sounds more like a problem of code design.
I'm amazed that there is actually a first post, that doesn't say 'frosty piss' that is modded interesting and is by someone with an account.
I could care less, but then I wouldn't have posted at all.
The alcohol lobby does not want the recreational use competing against their alcohol sales and the pharmaceutical lobby does not want the medicinal use competing against their drug sales.
So much for a free market.
I've got no idea how you've managed to get that out of this situation. It appears to me as if you have it completely backwards and that "different perspective" appears to be very contrived.
Not really, take this for example:
Damn I hate people who kill the machine for no good reason - Linus Torvalds.
He is not attacking the idea, he is attacking the person. I understand why he is pissed off, because of how many machines it will fuck up, a totally valid criticism. You don't take it personally because it would be like taking personally a shark trying to eat you, it's just what they are. No one wants to be swimming with a shark when it is hungry though.
Torvalds has a particular vision of what the kernel is and how it should behave. When people do something that interferes with his vision in an unfavourable way he reacts to it almost automatically, you see it all the time, it's impulse control. It's understandable, you don't *have* to take it personally, it's just who they are.
That's what you see when you don't take it personally, the person's message and how they are, because you are in control of your reactions without seeing things through the lens of your own emotion.
We've got Trump saying what is on his mind no matter who he offends all over the media (among many others) and you think Linus has lost it?
On the contrary, I think Linus is a very sane person. I think in time he will see that his attitude is damaging to his vision of the kernel and that when he comes to realise and step beyond his own behaviour he will be much more effective - as will the people around him because they won't have anxiety interfering with their coding.
Trump is a completely contrived character. A psychopath, dressed up as a real estate mogul, dressed up as a potential statesman. People get off on Donald trumpeting his rhetoric because they think they can be him one day.
Seriously? You actually wrote that?
Yes, are you criticising me or the idea? Many people don't take a minute to think about what is really important about their communication and allow their emotions to take over.
Did you read the post above at all or just "skim" and reply after seeing a few key words?
Yes, I read the thread before responding. I respect your opinion, I think it is only half the story. I think people who can't separate their message from their emotions are essentially unconscious retards who are unable to take responsibility for the manner of their communications or the consequences.
I was writing about THE EXACT OPPOSITE PROBLEM of people who read the criticisms of an idea mistaking it for a personal attack, for extra laughs in this case they are mistaking it for an attack on a person that is not them.
I was writing about THE EXACT OPPOSITE PERSPECTIVE of people who open their mouth before thinking about what their message is really about and lampooning their own valid criticisms with emotions they don't take a moment to control. You wouldn't speak to a stranger like that without expecting aggression.
Not as such
Well we will have to agree to disagree on that one because I think the difference is being self aware.
however dealing with volatile people that can't control their emotions
Now that is a bit of a stretch. It's not as is we get a "Linus was angry" story every year.
Sure, I like Linus. He seems very mild mannered. I think his work is very important to a lot of professionals, but he makes his supporters look foolish when he flips the bird at a camera and sneers. He can be how he wants to be, however if he is unable to take ownership of his emotions it is hardly surprising that he will continue to have these issues, where his message is lost on how he says it.
If we are to call it what it is.
I do excuse it. He is attacking the mistake of the person and not the person. Taking such stuff personally is ridiculous
I think that's a thing about geeks/nerds. If they see something that is stupid, they just say so. Most of the time there is no filter or consideration of the person behind the idea and, the effort they put into an idea, but don't intend it to come across as something personal. Usually it's because the critic (Linus in this case) isn't able to seperate their own emotions from their criticisms of an idea. Their code may be beautiful but their interactions are not and conflict arises.
Unfortunately we all do it to some extent however, I think the thing you have to look out for is when you start being an asshole most of the time because it puts people in the 'fuck you' mode, they don't listen to you anymore and, use BUG_ON. I'd imagine that he had some input as to who would be on the team so if they are morons, doesn't he share some blame for their actions?
These guys rise to a level of Assholiness where no one questions them anymore and they stop evolving. I'm not making a character judgment here, I've certainly been an asshole from time to time when I am working to realize a vision. What I saying is that being that asshole held me back where I was, so I wonder what guys like this can achieve if they have people rallying behind them, instead of them thinking 'hey this guy is gonna act like a jerk if I do something they don't like'.
Dealing with morons is frustrating however dealing with volatile people that can't control their emotions is too. No one gets what they want because a lack of charm inspires all the wrong things.
It's possible than an Indonesian meme has no spoon.
It's equally likely that their spoon is too big, and I am a banana.
That's illegal in Indonesia.
I've made several requests for systemd proponents to supply a use case that SysV initd could not support and haven't received a satisfactory reply to this purely technical question.
Secure, efficient, centralized logging.
I don't agree that is a use case for initd or systemd, I have issues with some of the failure modes.
Whilst there are some features of journalctl that I like, it again replaces generic knowledge about grep, awk and sed with specialist knowledge of systemd. In terms of the failure modes, with the binary logging format you can loose whatever is in the capture buffer is on a system restart and you never see the final error message that crashed the system. With processes that generate a lot of logging you now have systemd handling large volumes of log messages with everything else it does.
When your processes write to filesystems you can sync the fs buffer and still have the very last bytes of the message written to log where you can figure out the issue that caused the system to fail, or decide if you want a different filesystem to separate log activity to manage disk throughput. Finally, having log secured, efficient and centralized is a matter of design. Having it centralized also means it can become a bottleneck.
Than an Indonesian meme has no spoon.
thank you, I hope we see these engines buzzing around the solar system, I am fascinated.
I'd imagine when you have more current you can accelerate faster?
What about radioactive metals, depleted uranium for example, does the engine behave differently because the fuel is a radio isotope?
> rc scripts are only meant to prepare the system for entries in /etc/inittab, yet everyone tries to get everything done in rc, which serializes the Linux boot process. A parallell boot is completely achievable by using initd properly.
rc systems (like OpenRC) can get away with using one init(8) runlevel because they have pseudo-runlevels as well as service dependency handling.
inittab only provides you with _three_ ondemand runlevels: 'a', 'b', and 'c', so every significant service set change must be through a runlevel transition. It _also_ looks like you only have between four and seven runlevels (2, 3, 4, 5, ( and maybe 7, 8, and 9)) to play with.
A runlevel change isn't processed for a b or c, only their processes executed. You could use it for your use case but I don't think it would be the most appropriate way. An event handler is a good candidate for that one, I think. In your use case I would customize runlevel 4. It will work eith way, depending on if you want to manage the VPNs or you want the system to.
How do you handle service dependency requirements in inittab? For instance: At one of my sites I create persistent TUN devices with well-known names used by a set of unprivileged OpenVPN daemons. If those TUN devices are not up before the OpenVPN daemons start, then the daemons will fail, as they're not running as root and cannot create the TUN devices themselves.
Is there some way to handle these dependency requirement without writing and launching your own dependency handler (or altering the service with the dependency to -itself- check to ensure the dependency is started)?
I would configur init like this:
First, establishing the TUN devices is the system task that should be performed by the rc scripts of runlevel 4. If they fail then the system does not enter that runlevel.
The second part is /etc/inittab is configured with a per line entry for each open VPN. Dynamic VPN is out of scope here. Each entry refers to a shell script that exits on failure. The entry for each VPN is set to "respawn".
When runlevel 4 is ready then the TUN devices are ready. You can configure your rc script to not exit or timeout depending on how you manage failure below the TUN device level (hardware or kernel level perhaps).
When runlevel 4 is running the VPNs are each respawned if they fail automatically, by init. You might also chain init states so you can have have hypervisors stay running between states but you want to control the TUN/VPN setup/teardown.
Assume that you're planning for a system that runs ten different services that each have a couple of _different_ services that must be started (which -themselves- have some _other_ dependencies) before the first service with the dependency can start.
Well that is where I would incorporate the on demand runlevels and set those processes up with their own entries in /etc/inittab set to "ondemand".
Though for a long time I've thought that initd could really use a services manager. That's actually what I thought systemd was in the first places.
Hope you find that useful.
Why not do your own research instead? Go and learn systemd and then compare and write up a nice unbiased report for us all to read.
I have been learning systemd and have more and more criticisms of it as I learn more. I have test systems set up with systemd and a bunch of middleware that we used to integrate with initd.
In my experiences systemd replaces a lot of general knowledge you can apply elsewhere (like shell scripting and regular expressions) with specific knowledge about systemd's and its properties, so I'm unsure what a report would achieve considering new capabilities are added to systemd all the time.
Frankly I think I would rather spend my energy on writing some adjuncts to initd (like enable and disable) that make it more accessible. I'm open to suggestions.
Wow - thanks for commenting here and welcome. Please excuse the rude ACs.
I'm curious about the using space debris as fuel, if I read that right? If magnesium is the top "fuel" can it use something like aluminium and have a lower specific impulse?
I think Cmdr Taco is jealous of Dr Neumann's beard!
in BJJ
No, I have not competed at any semi-professional level.
Thanks for your advice, I don't think you are familiar with how we train though and what I need to do to get myself to competition fitness.
I can't fathom what it is based on. Ego?
Me either, however they are pushing systemd awfully hard to destroy a core part of Linux stability.
The sane decision would have been to put it there as an option and let users choose.
Perhaps this is RH's "Imperial" phase, they've won their market share and now they can do what they want.
I've made several requests for systemd proponents to supply a use case that SysV initd could not support and haven't received a satisfactory reply to this purely technical question. I was interested in what systemd could offer over initd. I find systemd proponents are overly veherment in their criticisms of initd proponents.
I sense this comes from an inability to address the issues raised and, perhaps a mindset that anyone who has an appreciation for initd's elegant power will simply be bulldozed into irrelevance. I think systemd's criticism of the rc scripts that starts a linux based system is valid criticism however we have to keep in mind that they were devised by Red Hat. It is dealing with rc shell scripts that are the brunt of the justification for systemd.
In that sense the unitd solution is tidy but also reveals the justification to replace initd is not based on a full understanding of its capabilities, or even an understanding of was it is, a process manager. rc scripts are only meant to prepare the system for entries in /etc/inittab, yet everyone tries to get everything done in rc, which serializes the Linux boot process. A parallell boot is completely achievable by using initd properly. I know there is more to it, like events and messaging, I'm just citing one example.
Yet I've never seen a Linux distro that's utilized initd's /etc/inittab file properly. Especially a Red Hat system. They don't use initd properly, the rc scripts are bloated with rewrites of what initd already does, and now we're replacing initd, keh? initd has yet to be utilized fully on modern linux systems.
Criticisms of sco the company aside: sco *as a distribution of unix* had an interesting adjunct feature to initd, the 'enable' and 'disable' command that managed entries in /etc/inittab, where you would configure the characteristics of the system you were running. Franky I think this is functionality is essentially
I think initd would make a lot more sense to more people if this functionality had been available in Linux from the beginning. It is true that initd is beguiling in terms of it's simplicity wrt its power, but it is also very worthwhile. It is supposed to be small as that is where the skill is expressed.
initd is where you design the characteristics of the system, it is not an event manager and all the other things systemd is supposed to be. Something that does all the functionality systemd has, belongs as an inittab enty, not as the first process the kernel runs.
The point of a bug like this is not that it is a big deal itself, the big deal is the failure mode systemd has been revealed to have due to its complexity. This the type of concern I have about systemd, what else can trigger such a failure mode. I have seen initd in a variety of failure modes and not once has it ever consumed all system resources and disconnected running processes.
Now we've seen systemd do something that initd can't.
This guy is is a fucking shill-bot, probably written in Perl.
That is still a bad idea. Not as bad as that of a wrist-worn one, but still bad.
Why? Why is it a bad idea to acquire data on the performance of my body when I train? I have to make weight to fight and cramping can mean I loose anywhere between 5-30mins of training time.
Have you ever competed? What do you suggest?