On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 09:51:22AM -0500, Rob Owens wrote: > > The problem is that the people behind this merge are inexperienced as system > admins. Being a good programmer does not by itself qualify a person to > decide on the types of changes they are proposing. You need to be an > experienced system admin if you are going to make smart changes to the > underlying layers of an operating system. > > This applies to what they are doing with systemd as well. And I can give a > simple example that illustrates the inexperience of the systemd architect(s): > > If I want to stop a service, then do some operation (edit a config file, > perhaps), then start that service, I need to run the following commands: > > systemctl stop someservice > vi someservice.cfg > systemctl start someservice > > The systemctl syntax are in nice English language order. It sounds like a > sentence. But it is backwards if you consider the steps a sysadmin would > take to type them: > > systemctl stop someservice > <up arrow for bash history> > <cursor back 12 spaces> > <backspace 4 spaces to erase "stop"> > start > <enter> > > Or just re-type the whole line -- it's probably quicker. > > If they had done it right: > > systemctl someservice stop > <up arrow for bash history> > <backspace 4 spaces> > start > <enter> > > An experienced sysadmin who has to do this type of thing several times a > day would have designed this syntax for ease of use. The systemd > developers did not do this, presumably because they do not have to type > these commands several times a day.
I would normally have edited the configuration file andd *then* sent a sighup. /etc/init.d/someservice restart. Is there some reason, som e corner case, why what I'm doing is wrong? Aside from not using systemd, of course. -- hendrik _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list [email protected] https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
