And here is the Gentoo Forums thread, Part 3.

2 members found this post helpful.

1 members found this post helpful.

"the issue is dead, no doubt because the changeover is invisible to the average user" .. except, of course, when it breaks things.

1 members found this post helpful.

closed not a bug, its a feature.

1 members found this post helpful.

Sure,

First, what I don't like about it:

• Binary based log files!!! What's wrong with ASCII based log files???

As that's not just un-UNIX, it's also un-Linux!!!

• Re-naming network interfaces!!!

What's wrong with eth0, eth1, etc???? And WHY the following:

I'm sorry, but this "feature" makes NO logical sense to me!!!

What I don't mind about it/like about it:

Faster startup/shutdown times (but runit is still faster again).

I personally am not hung up over the fact systemd does not do everything the UNIX way, as personally, if you are, what's wrong with the *BSD's, well, NOTHING!! So if that's a deal-breaker for you, why on earth would you be using Linux for??? (I would NOT be, if I was that hung up over it) I'm sorry to the systemd haters out there but, if I don't like something I REFUSE to use or support it!!! And this seems to be one of the biggest reasons for people hating systemd, sorry but it has to be said.

And I will also say that I have not had any major issues with systemd, I have to be honest.

Objective enough for ya??

@Fat_Elvis, are you still using Windows 98??

You could have knocked me over with a feather when I saw that, whoa!!!

Lets see ... First was Windows 3, then Windows 7, then Windows 10, followed by Windows 95 and then Windows 98. Right? So Windows 98 seems the latest and greatest to me.

1 members found this post helpful.

Is binary not readable, especially open source... (GPL &c)

people hate systemd because they're not developers and\or philosophy is not reality?

1 members found this post helpful.

But Windows 2000 is objectively later and greater

(I do actually think Windows 2000 is a half-decent OS; since then, the most notable "improvements" are in the "anti-piracy" measures)

Actually, Windows 2000 ran on NT kernel, if I remember correctly.

Anyhow, look at this thread. How many times we have seen a thread like this on the internet? Someone just triggered it and quit. Then members of this forum waste their time trying to do ... what? You cannot convince systemd proponents they are worshiping a fake god, they are immune to reason. And you cannot convince more technical people systemd is any good. I feel tempted to register a new account and start another systemd thread ...

Well, truth be known, I saw this thread a while ago now and was not going to reply to it, particularly after my systemd thread (not wishing to point any fingers, BTW). But given glorsplitz does not feel people are being objective and providing unbiased opinions, I decided to reply anyway (maybe ill-advised on my part, but I'll cop that if so).

I was only trying to offer an objective and unbiased opinion, I was not trying to cause any trouble (if you only knew what I've been though offline). I do realise that I'm never going to convince people dead against it or indeed for it, one way or the other (and I have no doubts about that). That's not why I replied in the first place, full stop period.

But never-the-less, like you I'm much more interested in the technical side of things too. But while I agree it has it's shortcomings (as I said in post #80), I disagree that it's fundamentally flawed because it does not do things the UNIX way. And I do not believe that Linux has to follow the UNIX way, but this IS one of the main reasons as to why a lot of people are against systemd.

I was not intending on starting an argument and walking away, truth be told it's nearly 1 o'clock in the morning in Oz right now and I'm still cooking my dinner (because I was roaming the forum before).

I'm not expecting you to suddenly change your mind about systemd, I'm sure I'll see Elvis before that happens.

Ironically a Slacker... (me too for somethings.)

Systemd doesn't break things that's a point.

I'm not supporting systemd in any way, shape, or form, yet I had been posting from Windows 95 OSR running Firefox 52.0.

I don't want to get into that debate, mostly because I have no experience with parsing huge log files. I have read some commentary from a few programmers -- for whom performance is the first priority, and they are Windows programmers to boot -- that the speed difference is negligible between parsing plain text and binary gibberish on even a semi-modern CPU.

By negligible, I mean negligible for people who hand-tune code in assembler. So there's that.

GCC is able to produce badass vectorized string instructions that even an Intel Atom supports today.

You know, I actually had been running Win98SE for a couple of days. Man, it was so bad. Back to FreeDOS now. Although, I'm only using that machine for my oddball 16 bit programming fetish. Its networking capabilities do not exceed FTP.

On even more of a tangent: The fastest kvm emulation on some of the fastest Intel i7s of today still does not even match the performance of a 866 mhz Celeron running the code natively.

No, sir/ma'am, I am posting from Slackware 14.2 and I like it all the way.

One stated reason for "binary log files" was that the format could thereby be standardized. How many (hundreds of ...) regular-expressions have we cooked up or "borrowed" over the years to "parse a log file?"

1 members found this post helpful.

Not quite getting the need for regex in parsing any output that your own program generates?

Most shell scripts could be converted to C or any one of the derivatives with a bit of effort, and passed on to GCC, which will garnish it with the special sauce. Even then, competent Bash can be quite fast on my machine, unless it's trying to do something really odd, like passing floating point math on to BC -- or constantly calling any other external program, really.

At any rate, standardization is a loaded word, in my opinion. I prefer to keep such at arm's length.

That was purely a comment about text vs. binary, by the way. My objection to systemd is much more fundamental as I've already stated.