I just want to respond after all this time because I ignored this debate as I hadn't had time for it.

Russ you state in the email of 30-08 that you wish people would realize the nuances between a system that can do one thing and a system that can do another thing and both have advantages, and Simon Richter stated the same and wrote a long blog post that I've also read.


When I voiced my problem with the idea that SystemD would be by definition superior, it was along the same idea.

I have no issue whatsoever with claiming that SystemD is better at some things. (And I write SystemD with caps because that makes it easier to read, people invented capitals for a reason). I only had an issue with unequivocally claiming that SystemD would be better at "everything" and hence be the "superior" project.

I like to say that superiority is something you can only claim based on a goal; the goal is a subjective thing, once you have the subjective thing (the goal) you can make objective assessments with regards to that goal. But you cannot make universal statements as to the superiority of anything.

A broken pot is superior at watering the ground. It may not be superior for holding and watering the plants held within it, but surely it will do a better job at spilling water on the ground.

That's why I wrote, as has been responded to, "But that's not the relevance. The idea that systemd is clearly superior to sysvinit is just something you concoct up because you don't know how to write a service file or script and you want to let systemd do the hard work.", and for no other reason really.

I mean, Mac lovers love Apple, and apple provides very high level functionality that has very low flexibility. If its model is not suitable to you, you cannot use the software. At the same time these people might claim "What's your problem? It's just easier!".

I never claimed SysV was superior. I just had a problem with the unequivocal "superiority" of SystemD being used as a brandishing stick to burn SysV scripts with. So Nikolaus Rath's response that:

"How is that concoted? Yes, systemd is clearly superior to sysvinit
because it doesn't require me to know how to write a service file or
script but does the hard work for me." -- was unwarranted.

I was not arguing for the superiority of SysV. I was arguing against the superiority of SystemD. I was basically arguing against superiority, not for it.

I just thought that the reasons for saying that "SystemV-init was outdated, and we're in 2016 now, and any sensible developer will know that SystemD is superior" -- and all of that --- were populist in nature and not rational; as if we have a Robber's Cave experiment where we have to prove which is the best team -- but there can only be one winner.

Reply via email to