One thing the world has been plagued with is people who can't write init scripts for crap. Redhat was particularly bad and ubuntu was only a little better. Arch, prior to switching had rather short, simple RC scripts, certainly nothing like you describe. Oh and it booted faster with it's RC scripts than systemD, so there's that too.
Ah, yes. I have observed that too. Funny thing is the ones I wrote myself never gave me any trouble later. Of course, moving to systemd to fix that is about the worst thing they could have done. Hiding complexity does not make it go away, it just makes it so much worse when something breaks. Genuine simplicity can only be replaced by genuine simplicity and systemd has nothing of that.
This bad? That is staggering. I think the following applies pretty well to the systemd team:
"Someone who considers himself too important for small jobs is often too small for important jobs" -- Jaques Tati
Solid engineering requires attention to detail. Rushing off to break even more other functionality before your replacement stuff works well is a sure recipe for disaster. Incidentally, while I do not have "rage" for them (they are far too unimportant to me), the defects of the idea itself may have something to do with these stupid problems. It seems they have replaced "Do one thing well" with "do many things poorly". As far as I can see, that is the main criticism against systemd, besides it being made default everywhere and things depending on it that have absolutely no business depending on an init-system, like Gnome.
That said, the worse their trash behaves, the sooner some people will wake up and will at least make sure viable alternatives stay maintained. I frankly could not care less if people use systemd as long as I can have a clean system without it without having to do the init-system myself.
This is an interesting thing. It does not seem to apply to violence though as violence does not occur in regular situations, but a stressful ones. But maybe a modified version would work and finding kids with problems when making decisions under stress and tending towards violence then could be identified early on and given extra skills in self-control under those circumstances.
This would need to be done without giving them any stigma or permanent record though, so it cannot really be done in the US these days. That society is far to much after punishing anybody "different" to the maximum extent possible, including things like schools calling the cops on young children.
Have you seen this bit here "do decide "emotionally" when it comes to important decisions or understanding important situations" in my posting? I never advised ignoring or suppressing emotion. That would not be a good idea. And on any unimportant stuff, it is quite fine to go by what you want or what your feel best with. Juts for important stuff, it is an exceedingly bad idea to proceed this way.
In the past, what came out of these efforts war universally horrible. Like people of a certain descendant being regarded as of low quality and better be disposed of (3rd Reich), people of a certain skin color being regarded as dumb or violent (USA, many others), etc.
On the other hand, nothing useful was ever found. The only ethical thing is to stay away from the whole approach. It only feeds racism and similar mind-sets.
And seriously, even USB hot-plug is not something that needs to be automatized. If you need to run some scripts manually anyways, just mount it manually. Udev has far too much "auto-mess" functionality for my tastes and I routinely find it making things worse instead of better.
It seems to be the classical Windows/Unix split: Some people want a system that assumes they are dumb and does everything for them. Others want control and understanding. Traditionally, the dumb ones standardized on Windows. Now some of them have seen that Linux actually has advantages, and they demand that dumbing-down on Linux as well, hence systemd. That this removes the main reasons to use Linux completely escapes them.
Those on Linux because it gives them access and control, and even a thing like the userspace part of the boot system can be understood with not a lot of effort, understandably do not want that. At all. The nice thing about Linux is that it turns a desktop or even a laptop into a server-grade Unix-like system. Systemd is out to stop that and make it again a windows-like, fragile, insecure, closed system that addresses users, not people with a clue. Sure, it does not go all the way (yet), but the direction this thing goes in is painfully clear. The rabid, fanatical, clueless followers that come with systemd are also no surprise at all. Windows has had them for a long time, but usually they could just be ignored.
You are missing what is going on here: Making the boxes more "friendly" to novices and at the same time throwing out reliability, simplicity and security. Of course most users like that as most users do not have much of a clue how their box works. But when a distro like Debian (which is still regarded as the "rock solid thing for the server", but probably not much longer) does it, then this massive dumbing down and all its drawbacks start to affect people that actually have a clue and that is where the opposition to systemd comes from. This is also why the opposition only manifested itself when systemd was being made the default all around and applications started to depend on it. Before, competent people could simply ignore this abomination and leave its use to the clueless and hence they did not care. That seems to be about to change, and that is just not acceptable.
And this is not singular to Linux. Ask an experienced Solaris administrator what they think about SMF (that is the part analog to systemd) and you will get some pretty heated negative reactions or horror-stories. Ask some nil-whits that can barely use a commandline, and they may actually say it is a step forward. But when you have a real service management problem, all these nice "enterprise" tools turn out to make the problem worse and now you have to work around them in really stupid ways and have to fix utterly demented defaults, like binary logs.
There is one: Membership in the biological group "Homo Sapiens". Anything more accurate is just trying to stick labels on people to make them "different" and push them out of society. Some people like doing that to elevate their pathetic selves by stomping on people they perceive to be even more pathetic.
The problem is that most people are violent deep down. The question thus becomes one of self-control and to what limit it gets tested. That is mostly an external effect, i.e. the level of provocation (sometimes real, but usually perceived only) the subject is exposed to. As you cannot measure the level of self-control, what you get is people where their normal environment often or sometimes exceeds their control and they get violent. As most people with lower control are unable to adjust that control by themselves, they will run into these situations again, given the same environment.
Now, this is a tricky thing to predict, and it is lacking good measurement tools on both sides, so no surprise this fails.
There is also the human fallacy promoted, e.g. by politicians and others without morals, that violent people are somehow fundamentally "different". It makes for good profits from the prison industry, gets votes for "being tough on crime" (as most voters assume, falsely, that they could never be criminals), but it completely misses the point. It is a mere parametrization issue and the sad truth is that "violent" people are just not quite able to follow the standards set by this particular society, but would possibly have been regarded as completely normal in a more violent society.
First, most humans are not that smart, but do not know that. It is called the "Dunning-Kruger" effect and it is well-established. Apparently at least the OP is unaware of it, possibly making him a subject of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Second, a majority of humans do not use what smarts they have effectively, but rather do decide "emotionally" when it comes to important decisions or understanding important situations. That obviously works rather badly, just look at what politicians get voted into office, or what life-choices people make. The problem here is that the whole "emotional decision" apparatus is a rather primitive left-over from caveman-times that cannot handle even situations of moderate complexity well. The second problem is that most humans never find that out, as the skill for self-reflection is also rather scarce and hence cannot actively compensate.
So give an arbitrary group of people an analysis or decision problem that somehow "touches" them (like asking students to predict whether other students fail at being students), and suddenly most of them turn into morons (or rather do not stop being morons in many cases), and even a simplistic statistic predictor does a lot better than they do.
Well, those that do not understand Unix are bound to re-invent its mechanisms, poorly. Systemd is a text-book example of that. Unfortunately, with the Linux community growing, far more idiots came in in recent years than people with a clue.
You seem to be confuses as to the nature of a server OS. You also seem to not have read or understood what I wrote about restarts. I did not say to not do it, I did say that it is a service-dependent thing. Yes, you do it for buggy software, but that is even more specific, as it depends on the service and the bug. What you often need to do is service-specific cleanup before you restart. In fact, that is almost standard.
What you claim is not possible. You seem to be stupid. But actually, my guess is you are just a systemd shill working from its propaganda manual. Just es he is.
In case you do not know it already: You are of these with a far bigger opinion of themselves than they can support by any actual skill and insight.
Maybe read up on what Erlang is? And why it was created? Here is a hint: You do not have bad coders working on telephone-switch software or your infrastructure comes crashing down on you. What you do, for example, is patching it at run-time without stopping the software. That is what Erlang makes possible. Of course this is orders of magnitude more complicated and risky than normal software-engineering and hence Erlang supports all the domain-specific help it can. But it most decidedly does not attempt to be a language for the incompetent like Rust.
You are mixing apples and oranges here. You should still give to both. By OpenSSH alone, OpenBSD has saved a lot of lifetime (although in smaller pieces than Doctors Without Borders) from getting wasted. And it is a critically needed fall-back if Linux continues to go down the train.
For variable values of "improvements". Some people (usually ones with a lot of experience and insights) think that the makers of systemd do not understand how Unix works or how to do professional system administration and hence view systemd rightfully as a step backwards.
That is as it should be. Restarting a service (or not) is dependent on the nature of the service and that nature of its crash. You can easily end up DoS-ing your machine by automatic unconstrained restarts. Hence service restart and service management has no place in an init-system or actually in the OS. Done right, it is a part of the service. It is also not hard to do and there are several packages that can serve as a basis for this.
That is just called solid engineering. Most companies would benefit a lot from it, but it is a long-term effect that the current crop of MBA idiots-savant "managers" do not understand.
Incidentally, I know one bank large enough that you would have recognized the name that recently nearly died because they did away with that redundancy to reduce cost. They were very lucky the incident happened on a Friday or they would be gone by now. A large competitor had the same problem a few days later(same network services supplier) and they only had a 30 minutes outage because they have a fully redundant infrastructure.
They are selling the silverware, i.e. are burning substance. You can do a nice straw-fire for a few years that way, lasting just enough for the predatory C-levels to cash in their stock options, and then it leaves a burned-out husk that will linger a few years and then die quietly. That is what is currently happening at most of these companies.
Slashdot Mirror
Seems you have not understood at all what the research says. (No surprise. Likely you are on the left side of their plot.)
The Ig Nobel Prize is not only for bad research. Quite a bit of good research has gotten it.
One thing the world has been plagued with is people who can't write init scripts for crap. Redhat was particularly bad and ubuntu was only a little better. Arch, prior to switching had rather short, simple RC scripts, certainly nothing like you describe. Oh and it booted faster with it's RC scripts than systemD, so there's that too.
Ah, yes. I have observed that too. Funny thing is the ones I wrote myself never gave me any trouble later. Of course, moving to systemd to fix that is about the worst thing they could have done. Hiding complexity does not make it go away, it just makes it so much worse when something breaks. Genuine simplicity can only be replaced by genuine simplicity and systemd has nothing of that.
This bad? That is staggering. I think the following applies pretty well to the systemd team:
"Someone who considers himself too important for small jobs is often too small for important jobs" -- Jaques Tati
Solid engineering requires attention to detail. Rushing off to break even more other functionality before your replacement stuff works well is a sure recipe for disaster. Incidentally, while I do not have "rage" for them (they are far too unimportant to me), the defects of the idea itself may have something to do with these stupid problems. It seems they have replaced "Do one thing well" with "do many things poorly". As far as I can see, that is the main criticism against systemd, besides it being made default everywhere and things depending on it that have absolutely no business depending on an init-system, like Gnome.
That said, the worse their trash behaves, the sooner some people will wake up and will at least make sure viable alternatives stay maintained. I frankly could not care less if people use systemd as long as I can have a clean system without it without having to do the init-system myself.
These people are collectively too stupid. Unfortunately, this stupidity will cost the common person a lot in the end.
This is an interesting thing. It does not seem to apply to violence though as violence does not occur in regular situations, but a stressful ones. But maybe a modified version would work and finding kids with problems when making decisions under stress and tending towards violence then could be identified early on and given extra skills in self-control under those circumstances.
This would need to be done without giving them any stigma or permanent record though, so it cannot really be done in the US these days. That society is far to much after punishing anybody "different" to the maximum extent possible, including things like schools calling the cops on young children.
Have you seen this bit here "do decide "emotionally" when it comes to important decisions or understanding important situations" in my posting? I never advised ignoring or suppressing emotion. That would not be a good idea. And on any unimportant stuff, it is quite fine to go by what you want or what your feel best with. Juts for important stuff, it is an exceedingly bad idea to proceed this way.
In the past, what came out of these efforts war universally horrible. Like people of a certain descendant being regarded as of low quality and better be disposed of (3rd Reich), people of a certain skin color being regarded as dumb or violent (USA, many others), etc.
On the other hand, nothing useful was ever found. The only ethical thing is to stay away from the whole approach. It only feeds racism and similar mind-sets.
And seriously, even USB hot-plug is not something that needs to be automatized. If you need to run some scripts manually anyways, just mount it manually. Udev has far too much "auto-mess" functionality for my tastes and I routinely find it making things worse instead of better.
It seems to be the classical Windows/Unix split: Some people want a system that assumes they are dumb and does everything for them. Others want control and understanding. Traditionally, the dumb ones standardized on Windows. Now some of them have seen that Linux actually has advantages, and they demand that dumbing-down on Linux as well, hence systemd. That this removes the main reasons to use Linux completely escapes them.
Those on Linux because it gives them access and control, and even a thing like the userspace part of the boot system can be understood with not a lot of effort, understandably do not want that. At all. The nice thing about Linux is that it turns a desktop or even a laptop into a server-grade Unix-like system. Systemd is out to stop that and make it again a windows-like, fragile, insecure, closed system that addresses users, not people with a clue. Sure, it does not go all the way (yet), but the direction this thing goes in is painfully clear. The rabid, fanatical, clueless followers that come with systemd are also no surprise at all. Windows has had them for a long time, but usually they could just be ignored.
Nice. You are now a criminal in quite a few jurisdictions. No surprise, matches the expressed mind-set.
You are missing what is going on here: Making the boxes more "friendly" to novices and at the same time throwing out reliability, simplicity and security. Of course most users like that as most users do not have much of a clue how their box works. But when a distro like Debian (which is still regarded as the "rock solid thing for the server", but probably not much longer) does it, then this massive dumbing down and all its drawbacks start to affect people that actually have a clue and that is where the opposition to systemd comes from. This is also why the opposition only manifested itself when systemd was being made the default all around and applications started to depend on it. Before, competent people could simply ignore this abomination and leave its use to the clueless and hence they did not care. That seems to be about to change, and that is just not acceptable.
And this is not singular to Linux. Ask an experienced Solaris administrator what they think about SMF (that is the part analog to systemd) and you will get some pretty heated negative reactions or horror-stories. Ask some nil-whits that can barely use a commandline, and they may actually say it is a step forward. But when you have a real service management problem, all these nice "enterprise" tools turn out to make the problem worse and now you have to work around them in really stupid ways and have to fix utterly demented defaults, like binary logs.
There is one: Membership in the biological group "Homo Sapiens". Anything more accurate is just trying to stick labels on people to make them "different" and push them out of society. Some people like doing that to elevate their pathetic selves by stomping on people they perceive to be even more pathetic.
The problem is that most people are violent deep down. The question thus becomes one of self-control and to what limit it gets tested. That is mostly an external effect, i.e. the level of provocation (sometimes real, but usually perceived only) the subject is exposed to. As you cannot measure the level of self-control, what you get is people where their normal environment often or sometimes exceeds their control and they get violent. As most people with lower control are unable to adjust that control by themselves, they will run into these situations again, given the same environment.
Now, this is a tricky thing to predict, and it is lacking good measurement tools on both sides, so no surprise this fails.
There is also the human fallacy promoted, e.g. by politicians and others without morals, that violent people are somehow fundamentally "different". It makes for good profits from the prison industry, gets votes for "being tough on crime" (as most voters assume, falsely, that they could never be criminals), but it completely misses the point. It is a mere parametrization issue and the sad truth is that "violent" people are just not quite able to follow the standards set by this particular society, but would possibly have been regarded as completely normal in a more violent society.
First, most humans are not that smart, but do not know that. It is called the "Dunning-Kruger" effect and it is well-established. Apparently at least the OP is unaware of it, possibly making him a subject of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Second, a majority of humans do not use what smarts they have effectively, but rather do decide "emotionally" when it comes to important decisions or understanding important situations. That obviously works rather badly, just look at what politicians get voted into office, or what life-choices people make. The problem here is that the whole "emotional decision" apparatus is a rather primitive left-over from caveman-times that cannot handle even situations of moderate complexity well. The second problem is that most humans never find that out, as the skill for self-reflection is also rather scarce and hence cannot actively compensate.
So give an arbitrary group of people an analysis or decision problem that somehow "touches" them (like asking students to predict whether other students fail at being students), and suddenly most of them turn into morons (or rather do not stop being morons in many cases), and even a simplistic statistic predictor does a lot better than they do.
Well, those that do not understand Unix are bound to re-invent its mechanisms, poorly. Systemd is a text-book example of that. Unfortunately, with the Linux community growing, far more idiots came in in recent years than people with a clue.
You seem to be confuses as to the nature of a server OS. You also seem to not have read or understood what I wrote about restarts. I did not say to not do it, I did say that it is a service-dependent thing. Yes, you do it for buggy software, but that is even more specific, as it depends on the service and the bug. What you often need to do is service-specific cleanup before you restart. In fact, that is almost standard.
What you claim is not possible. You seem to be stupid. But actually, my guess is you are just a systemd shill working from its propaganda manual. Just es he is.
Your argument it complete bullshit in the given context. Please go away.
In case you do not know it already: You are of these with a far bigger opinion of themselves than they can support by any actual skill and insight.
Maybe read up on what Erlang is? And why it was created? Here is a hint: You do not have bad coders working on telephone-switch software or your infrastructure comes crashing down on you. What you do, for example, is patching it at run-time without stopping the software. That is what Erlang makes possible. Of course this is orders of magnitude more complicated and risky than normal software-engineering and hence Erlang supports all the domain-specific help it can. But it most decidedly does not attempt to be a language for the incompetent like Rust.
Your point?
You are mixing apples and oranges here. You should still give to both. By OpenSSH alone, OpenBSD has saved a lot of lifetime (although in smaller pieces than Doctors Without Borders) from getting wasted. And it is a critically needed fall-back if Linux continues to go down the train.
For variable values of "improvements". Some people (usually ones with a lot of experience and insights) think that the makers of systemd do not understand how Unix works or how to do professional system administration and hence view systemd rightfully as a step backwards.
That is as it should be. Restarting a service (or not) is dependent on the nature of the service and that nature of its crash. You can easily end up DoS-ing your machine by automatic unconstrained restarts. Hence service restart and service management has no place in an init-system or actually in the OS. Done right, it is a part of the service. It is also not hard to do and there are several packages that can serve as a basis for this.
That is just called solid engineering. Most companies would benefit a lot from it, but it is a long-term effect that the current crop of MBA idiots-savant "managers" do not understand.
Incidentally, I know one bank large enough that you would have recognized the name that recently nearly died because they did away with that redundancy to reduce cost. They were very lucky the incident happened on a Friday or they would be gone by now. A large competitor had the same problem a few days later(same network services supplier) and they only had a 30 minutes outage because they have a fully redundant infrastructure.
They are selling the silverware, i.e. are burning substance. You can do a nice straw-fire for a few years that way, lasting just enough for the predatory C-levels to cash in their stock options, and then it leaves a burned-out husk that will linger a few years and then die quietly. That is what is currently happening at most of these companies.