[icebraining]

Yeah, but inetd was just about TCP sockets. systemd also supports unix-socket activation, which can block the client when the buffer is full, preventing data loss. I agree that TCP socket activation is iffy (though I still use inetd for non-critical stuff), but unix-socket activation seems safe to me.

[exarch]

Safe, but seems like it's solving a problem that doesn't really exist, or at least exists as a mosquito not warranting a bazooka swat.

[e7620]

Your analogies are great, transmiting a clear picture of systemd, like this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/Professor...

[dang]

This style of debate is not welcome on Hacker News. Please drop it while you're here.

[exarch]

What offended about his post, out of curiosity? The Rube Goldberg analogy (I found that rather apt), or the "Professor Lucifer Butts" aspect of it (which I'll also confess to finding not the least apropos nickname for a certain Red Hatted German)?

[dang]

The sarcasm combined with the scabrous smack.

There are some online communities in which that kind of thing is ok. HN is not one of those.

[e7620]

> combined with the scabrous smack.

The word 'scabrous' means "dealing with salacious or indecent material". Feel free to inspect the image, I guarantee it's safe for work.