"My English is not good today been speaking another language it takes time to switch back." - its fine. better than a lot of the posters whose first language is English
"but forget that will only start working if certain other parts of systemd get going" - thats the case for all bits of software, if it doesn;t go, it doesn;t work
Is that still the case? here's an explanation about issues between KDE and systemd i've found "As ConsoleKit is deprecated, systemd offers its own daemon to keep track of sessions and assigned seats in a system. However, the KDE Workspaces rely on ConsoleKit to handle user switching, reboot, shutdown and a lot of their things. Removing ConsoleKit would mean that users would suffer feature loss. On the other hand, with something that’s been deprecated and no longer actively worked on, you have issues with maintenance." i took it from thjs link https://www.dennogumi.org/2012...
Not all is lost, from what i've read about the journal logging systemd has a setting called "ForwardToSyslog - Control whether log messages received by the journal daemon shall be forwarded to a traditional syslog daemon, to the kernel log buffer (kmsg), to the system console, or sent as wall messages to all logged-in users. These options take boolean arguments."
KDE lets you decide who you want your system, Gnome forces you to have their way. shame you've lost the ability to think for yourself on what suits you on a desktop
well, that shouldn't be a problem for the "serious sys admins" as they will be smart enough to remove systemd and re-institute their favoured system init solution.
no, theories in the science sense are almost taken as a law because they have enough evidence to be pretty much valid, you probably mean "hypothesis" because in science terms its an idea that needs investigating. (more or less correct definition for a layman)
""Ok, evolution is real, but its ultimate cause is angels."." - i think some of the major abrahmic religions are spouting this now but using "God" and "angels"
I'm afraid the religious just cannot compute the size of the answer hence they give up and say "God did it", its easier on the brain. I now when i was a kid i was completely freaked when i tried to envisage infinity and where the edges of space were and what is holding up space in order to hold the universes, i think it still will to some degree until we find the answer but i'll probably be very dead by then
I get what you mean but not sure about that being a good idea. the religious would see creationism as validated no matter how much evidence you put in front of them. Maybe, if you really need to discuss it, stick it in a geography or geology class.
You missed out some relevant bits in your redaction which illustrates the problem, detractor just cherry pick and take out of context the bits they want to fit their pre-conception. So i think he did a good enough job in his blog post to dispel the myths. Most of that so called deconstruction you linked to is full of personal attacks on him and full of things that are still wrong
Myth: systemd is difficult.
This also is entire non-sense..."A systemd platform is actually much simpler than traditional Linuxes"....systemd certainly comes with a learning curve.
Myth: systemd is a freedesktop.org project.
yes, we host our stuff at [freedesktop.org] - "Well, systemd is certainly hosted at fdo, but freedesktop.org is little else but a repository for code and documentation".
Myth: systemd is not UNIX.
There's certainly some truth in that. "systemd's sources do not contain a single line of code originating from original UNIX. However, we derive inspiration from UNIX, and thus there's a ton of UNIX in systemd."
Myth: systemd is complex.
There's certainly some truth in that. "However, systemd is certainly not more complex than prior implementations of the same components".
Myth: systemd is a feature creep.
Well, systemd certainly covers more ground that it used to......"but we carefully make sure to keep most of the features optional. You can turn a lot off at compile time, and even more at runtime. Thus you can choose freely how much feature creeping you want".
i'd point you to Myths 1 &. 6 - you are just looking for a way to poison people against "systemd" with trivia and semantics. i presume you've read the myths page and sent an email to him pointing out the errors of his ways in his definitions.
"But then, they aren't you; so they are just stupid, right?" - unfortunately there seem to be a load of self-important old school admins who know it all who hate change and disparage other peoples efforts by making dubious "complaints"
so trying to dilute the amount of bullshit put about a particular system by a load of posters who are just repeating shit they've read elsewhere by pointing them to places where they can get some info is "astroturfing"? i'd say most of the shit arguments against the system is "astroturfing"
"20. Myth: systemd makes it impossible to run syslog.
Not true, we carefully made sure when we introduced the journal that all data is also passed on to any syslog daemon running. In fact, if something changed, then only that syslog gets more complete data now than it got before, since we now cover early boot stuff as well as STDOUT/STDERR of any system service."
Unless someone is going to dispute his responses to the myths with good arguments and real life repeatable cases then his blog response is more valid than a bunch of whiners repeating shit without checking it out.
"Wrong. Linux kernel has modular architecture, but monolithic design. The precise opposite of the systemd" - i don't see the difference
"The question here is about the case when systemd itself "stops talking"." - the question is when "init" itself stops talking
"This is precisely the consequence of monolithic architecture in combination with modular design: the singular logic is spread across many "modules" (the *-systemd binaries) and when the modules do not agree with each other, things go south pretty quickly." - thats the case for all things, its all the same but different
Slashdot Mirror
systemd is not all dependent on Gnome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
"My English is not good today been speaking another language it takes time to switch back." - its fine. better than a lot of the posters whose first language is English
"but forget that will only start working if certain other parts of systemd get going" - thats the case for all bits of software, if it doesn;t go, it doesn;t work
Is that still the case? here's an explanation about issues between KDE and systemd i've found "As ConsoleKit is deprecated, systemd offers its own daemon to keep track of sessions and assigned seats in a system. However, the KDE Workspaces rely on ConsoleKit to handle user switching, reboot, shutdown and a lot of their things. Removing ConsoleKit would mean that users would suffer feature loss. On the other hand, with something that’s been deprecated and no longer actively worked on, you have issues with maintenance." i took it from thjs link https://www.dennogumi.org/2012...
Not all is lost, from what i've read about the journal logging systemd has a setting called "ForwardToSyslog - Control whether log messages received by the journal daemon shall be forwarded to a traditional syslog daemon, to the kernel log buffer (kmsg), to the system console, or sent as wall messages to all logged-in users. These options take boolean arguments."
KDE lets you decide who you want your system, Gnome forces you to have their way. shame you've lost the ability to think for yourself on what suits you on a desktop
well, that shouldn't be a problem for the "serious sys admins" as they will be smart enough to remove systemd and re-institute their favoured system init solution.
Maybe its reached its goal. adding more might make it fall into that spurious vapourware claim of being "bloated"
can you do that for the rest of that shitty book of violence??
no, theories in the science sense are almost taken as a law because they have enough evidence to be pretty much valid, you probably mean "hypothesis" because in science terms its an idea that needs investigating. (more or less correct definition for a layman)
""Ok, evolution is real, but its ultimate cause is angels."." - i think some of the major abrahmic religions are spouting this now but using "God" and "angels"
I'm afraid the religious just cannot compute the size of the answer hence they give up and say "God did it", its easier on the brain. I now when i was a kid i was completely freaked when i tried to envisage infinity and where the edges of space were and what is holding up space in order to hold the universes, i think it still will to some degree until we find the answer but i'll probably be very dead by then
I get what you mean but not sure about that being a good idea. the religious would see creationism as validated no matter how much evidence you put in front of them. Maybe, if you really need to discuss it, stick it in a geography or geology class.
You missed out some relevant bits in your redaction which illustrates the problem, detractor just cherry pick and take out of context the bits they want to fit their pre-conception. So i think he did a good enough job in his blog post to dispel the myths. Most of that so called deconstruction you linked to is full of personal attacks on him and full of things that are still wrong
....systemd certainly comes with a learning curve.
Myth: systemd is difficult. This also is entire non-sense..."A systemd platform is actually much simpler than traditional Linuxes"
Myth: systemd is a freedesktop.org project. yes, we host our stuff at [freedesktop.org] - "Well, systemd is certainly hosted at fdo, but freedesktop.org is little else but a repository for code and documentation".
Myth: systemd is not UNIX. There's certainly some truth in that. "systemd's sources do not contain a single line of code originating from original UNIX. However, we derive inspiration from UNIX, and thus there's a ton of UNIX in systemd."
Myth: systemd is complex. There's certainly some truth in that. "However, systemd is certainly not more complex than prior implementations of the same components".
Myth: systemd is a feature creep. Well, systemd certainly covers more ground that it used to......"but we carefully make sure to keep most of the features optional. You can turn a lot off at compile time, and even more at runtime. Thus you can choose freely how much feature creeping you want".
i'd point you to Myths 1 &. 6 - you are just looking for a way to poison people against "systemd" with trivia and semantics. i presume you've read the myths page and sent an email to him pointing out the errors of his ways in his definitions.
"But then, they aren't you; so they are just stupid, right?" - unfortunately there seem to be a load of self-important old school admins who know it all who hate change and disparage other peoples efforts by making dubious "complaints"
if it don't suit you, don't use it. but don't "serious admins" use Unix? well, that used to be the argument
so trying to dilute the amount of bullshit put about a particular system by a load of posters who are just repeating shit they've read elsewhere by pointing them to places where they can get some info is "astroturfing"? i'd say most of the shit arguments against the system is "astroturfing"
so anyone who agrees with your point of view is a "serious admin" and everyone else is a "kid", sounds a very considered assessment.
that's just a matter of opinion as usual.
You should do more, some even, investigation.
"20. Myth: systemd makes it impossible to run syslog.
Not true, we carefully made sure when we introduced the journal that all data is also passed on to any syslog daemon running. In fact, if something changed, then only that syslog gets more complete data now than it got before, since we now cover early boot stuff as well as STDOUT/STDERR of any system service."
it does trump most of the shit pumped out repeatedly - please explain what's irrelevant about his responses to the myths.
Unless someone is going to dispute his responses to the myths with good arguments and real life repeatable cases then his blog response is more valid than a bunch of whiners repeating shit without checking it out.
"Wrong. Linux kernel has modular architecture, but monolithic design. The precise opposite of the systemd" - i don't see the difference
"The question here is about the case when systemd itself "stops talking"." - the question is when "init" itself stops talking
"This is precisely the consequence of monolithic architecture in combination with modular design: the singular logic is spread across many "modules" (the *-systemd binaries) and when the modules do not agree with each other, things go south pretty quickly." - thats the case for all things, its all the same but different
the kernel is more of a monolith so I take you are using Hurd..