[175404] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Miles Fidelman)
Tue Oct 21 16:57:00 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2014 16:56:24 -0400
From: Miles Fidelman <mfidelman@meetinghouse.net>
CC: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAL9jLabqfawKD917CMot5E5TUMfFfD4dqUL_CNXpadkt_gyQHA@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Christopher Morrow wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Andrew Sullivan <asullivan@dyn.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 03:11:55PM -0400, Barry Shein wrote:
>>> But
>>> for example some of my servers boot in seconds.
>> One is reminded of a mail, included in the Preface to _The UNIX-HATERS
>> Handbook_, available at
> it's really not clear to me that 'reboots in seconds' is a thing to optimize...
>
> I suppose the win is:
> "Is the startup/shutdown process clear, conscise and understandable
> at 3am local time?"
>
> followed by:
> "Can I adjust my startup processes to meet my needs easily and
> without finding a phd in unix?"
>
> If systemd is simply a change in how I think about /etc/init.d/* and
> /etc/rc?.d/* cool, if it's more complexity and less EASY flexibility
> then it's a fail.
>
You guys REALLY don't want to wade into the swamp on debian-users -- the
place is full of systemd fanboys and apologists, and anybody who raises
real operational concerns resulting from the switch in default init
systems.
I'm really pining for a LISP Machine right about now.
Miles Fidelman
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
