[theamk]

It's not a lock-in as much as making a much better product.

For example, I never liked the idea of having my programs to manually daemonize, manage logs, set up permissions and all that boring, but security-critical stuff. And with systemd, I don't have to! Program reads from stdin/stdout, maybe gets socket from socket activation, and systemd does the rest.

Is it lock-in? Only because other system suck. Like, seriously, what stopped xinetd from having rudimentary volatile "on/off" control, so I could disable misbehaving service? Or why is start-stop-daemon so _stupid_, discarding all startup error messages? And don't get me started on all the different init file dialects for each system.

Maybe if the sysvinit programmers actually cared about providing nicer services to app developers, we would never end up with systemd.

[its_magic]

The problem with the word "sysvinit" here is it's sort of a red herring. BSD init is better, in my opinion. I don't like managing all those symlinks. Plus, sysvinit is an old 90s application and its code does have some cruft built up over the years that could be removed and simplified. I'm devising a new init for my system that's much simpler than sysvinit and much closer to BSD.

[theamk]

"BSD init", "much simpler"... So does this mean you still expect applications to manage their own logs, daemonization and security setup themselves?

If yes, that's yet another init system not made for application writers.

[its_magic]

Manage their own logs, daemonization, and security? The humanity! How will they ever manage all of that?

Come on man. It's been done for decades.

It doesn't take a giant bloated infrastructure to manage most people's needs, which are quite basic in most cases.

[theamk]

.. and that opinion is a great explanation of why systemd won.

Turns out, a lot of people are not happy with "Come on man. It's been done for decades." attitude, and they wanted something new and much better. And so when something new came up, they jumped on it with both feet.

It's instructive to read Debian CTTE discussion on init systems (btw I think it's best tech drama of 2013, highly recommend) - a lot of people dismissed the sysvinit early on because it had no features (example [0]), which means the choices were either upstart and systemd. And between two of those, systemd is a clear win.

Read the thread and look at how many highly technical people with no relation to Fedora or Poettering is ready to choose _anything else_ just to get away from "it's been done for decades".

[0] https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2013/12/msg00234.html

[its_magic]

> .. and that opinion is a great explanation of why systemd won.

Completely wrong and ignorant.

> Turns out, a lot of people are not happy with "Come on man. It's been done for decades." attitude, and they wanted something new and much better.

And then they got systemd. LOL

Like Dr. Phil said, "How's that workin out for ya?" LOL

> And so when something new came up, they jumped on it with both feet.

You just did what your type always does: whatever you're told.

> It's instructive to read Debian CTTE discussion on init systems

No, it really isn't. lol

> the choices were either upstart and systemd. And between two of those, systemd is a clear win.

Well, it's too bad none of the other good options were considered, isn't it? When your only "options" are a giant douche or a turd sandwich, the outcome can't possibly be good.

See U.S. presidential elections for one of the best examples of this dynamic. Two complete fucking losers are presented every time, and 40% of the population are mesmerized by the spectacle and think there can be no other possible options at all. That's you.

The fact is, many of you noobs don't even know how to write a shell script, yet somehow feel qualified to comment on this subject, as if your opinion is worth anything at all.

How many daemons have you personally written? Hmm? Do you even know how to write any C at all? Daemonizing a process isn't rocket science. It's a double fork. So simple even you could do it, I bet.

The problem is you're too technically ignorant to understand that none of your "technical" arguments hold any water at all. It's just you repeating the bullshit you were told, as usual.

Every Big Lie being told relies on Useful Idiots like you to help support it.

Logging is not difficult. Double forking is not difficult. If you find any of that to be a challenge, you're not qualified to write a daemon. If you can't successfully set up and run something like runit or any of the many other good sysvinit alternatives, you're not qualified to administer a Linux system. Period.

You make all these appeals to authority ("highly technical people" saying this or that) like that means something. You forget that you're speaking to the guy who built his own operating system. I don't need any guidance from "highly technical people" on what init system to pick. Apparently you're the type who does.

That's what your entire argument basically boils down to--one giant appeal to authority.

If everyone else was jumping off a bridge, would you do it too? Of course you would, without a moment's hesitation. Because you're a God damned lemming.

Now get off my lawn.

[theamk]

wow, you don't really get what "open source" or "working together with others" is, do you?