| ▲ | seany 4 hours ago |
| We had reasonable building blocks before systemd... |
|
| ▲ | rezonant 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I think we just have different ideas of what the word "reasonable" means. |
| |
| ▲ | egorfine 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't think anyone seriously defends sysvinit. However upstart was totally reasonable. | |
| ▲ | Joker_vD 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Upstart was reasonable. So is OpenRC. |
|
|
| ▲ | IshKebab 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| A bunch of barely working duck-taped Bash scripts? Hardly reasonable. |
| |
| ▲ | hnlmorg 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You’d be surprised just how often systemd calls bash scripts. | |
| ▲ | kjs3 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You might have done barely working duck-taped Bash scripts; not eveyone who calls themself a 'system admin' is competent. But actual professionals who ran these systems since the 1970s had carefully written, fully functional scripts and we were quite capable of keeping hundreds and thousands of servers running just fine. Being bad at your job isn't the tools fault. | | |
| ▲ | IshKebab 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | All Bash scripts are duck-taped by definition. It's a shitty duck-tape language. > thousands of servers running just fine Err yeah well you might have noticed these things called "laptops" and "desktops". SysVinit was... fine.. on servers. It worked badly on desktops and not really at all on laptops. I'm pretty sure the post introducing SystemD explained it all in detail if you want to learn something. |
|
|
