On Mon, 22 Feb 2016 14:49:20 +0000 Simon Hobson <li...@thehobsons.co.uk> wrote:
> In my experience, sometimes > you just have to accept that some edge cases don't work very well - > but it's better to have to fudge around those than to make the entire > world suboptimal to cater for them. Read the preceding sentence. Isn't that the philosophy we sans-systemd people live by every day? Apparently systemd works, from what I read. Apparently it works for everybody, from the dumbest of the dumb to the smartest of the smart, in all use reasonable use cases. But at what cost? Every edge case has its own little connector within systemd. There is layer upon layer upon layer of airbags and safety shutoffs and auto-configurators within systemd. Instead of merely providing a way to read the root partition in order to get to /etc, /bin and /sbin, systemd provides a jungle-like initramfs and actually interacts with it over and over again. When we sans-systemd people find a use case that doesn't work out of the box, the solution is usually a couple shellscripts away: Those shellscripts being simple because our systems are simple. When the systemd crowd finds something that doesn't work (admittedly, this is a rarer occurrence), they must be doing something wrong. I like automatic. I like "just works". But not when it buries the mechanism in a Rube Goldberg machine of official workarounds. Or, in the words of a very observant person: ========================================================= sometimes you just have to accept that some edge cases don't work very well - but it's better to have to fudge around those than to make the entire world suboptimal to cater for them. ========================================================= SteveT Steve Litt February 2016 featured book: The Key to Everyday Excellence http://www.troubleshooters.com/key _______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng