Sadly systemd is driven to satisfy certain groups bad-laziness and lobbied someone ELSE to compensate for their poor design with this abomination of abstractionhttps://twitter.com/SwiftOnSecurity/status/977195856607830017?s=20 …
-
Show this thread
-
Systemd will go away , it is just painful bway. Everything is a file stream is the right approach.
3 replies 10 retweets 15 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @tomov_eu
I'm still waiting for a "well reasoned" (as opposed to "don't try to stop progress") argument on what was wrong w/ inet.d -- yes I have read most of it so don't bother me w/ links -- sometimes there are perceived problems that aren't and therefore don't need to be solved...
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Nothing really wrong with init.d, and you can do everything with it. But in the same way you can do everything in assembler. We know how to do better abstractions now.
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Systemd is a "better abstraction" ??? Of what ??? Extremely curious!
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Service management. You can put together a script managing cgroups, privilege dropping, private mounts, guaranteed shutdown, etc. In practice people don't. But each one is one option away in systemd.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
There have existed superior service managers to init since at least the early 2000s, none of which overstepped it's bounds or messed with critical infrastructure the way systemd does. systemd is pure NIH. But, hey, it has Redhat backing it, so it's gotta be good, right?
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes
RedHat, LinuxFoundation #lobbying is part of the problem, yes!
-
-
Non sequitur?
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.