: D

This is undesirable. The services a server needs to deliver is known ahead of time, and it is very prudent to make sure all of those services are functioning properly before it (re-)enters production use.

The traditional model is the correct one: All necessary services are started, their health ascertained, and then the server added to the work pool.

I'm actually now more interested in the "harder to hack" scenario because we still have an under/undocumented API within systemd to the point nobody but the systemd devs knows what it truly does. To me, that should raise some alarms before anything else. I'm no "anti-government tinfoil hatter" but I do value my privacy and the NSA doesn't need to know what they don't need to know, and I, for one, would actually like to know if my system has a backdoor.

As far as reliability goes, the standard model has been nearly 100% reliable and BSD uses a nearly identical design. No question anyone should prefer stability over performance, unless you're doing testing or evaluations.

1 members found this post helpful.

@ReaperX7: (see this as a funny post)

I have an old black and white TV for you if you want. (read traditional UNIX)
Or a 32" Color TV (read SysVinit)
I just bought a new Full HD color TV (read systemd without all options)
I did not buy a 4K OLED 3D curved TV (read systemd with all options)

All of them do the same job (show things on my screen)

Heh! :-D I like that. Another way of putting it:

You can have coffee, if you like (traditional UNIX).
You can also have espresso (sysvinit + traditional userland infrastructure).
Or you can have a double pumpkin latte soymilk decaf with a shot of caramel and green food dye (systemd).

The green dye may or may not be toxic; anyone complaining of intestinal bleeding will be dismissed as "against change" ;-)

6 members found this post helpful.

Nice to see some humor in this thread for a change.

The source code is freely available for every one willing to read it and figure out what it truly does.


Cheers

I guess that was a joke, right?

That is just another symptom of the attitude shift from FREE software, which respects the rights of users, to the cynicism of Open Source©™.

FREE Software says, "Here, let me help you understand how you can best make use this for your own purposes".

Open Source©™ says, "Hey, the source is open - you go figure it out! (Snicker, snicker...) Otherwise just shut up and use it".

There is no attitude shift. There is only a bunch of wannabe geeks who believe that installing Linux and administrating a primitive setup makes them experts.


Cheers

3 members found this post helpful.

To quote a famous engineer, "And if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon".

1 members found this post helpful.

Maybe the last comparisons in that analogy should start with the tv that watches you
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/15/02/...ay-be-recorded

2 members found this post helpful.

So if you're so smart, why don't you take the systemd code and document it yourself if you think you're more of an expert than the so-called by your terms, wannabe geeks. If you want to preach the cynicism of Free Software and want to thump the Open Source Bible, then by all means show us what you know and prove yourself to be not another wannabe yourself or hold off on the empty rhetoric and end this charade.

Not all of us are coders proficient in C, and developers and wannabe developers thumping that claim is getting old and tiring. Many of us are damn sick of developers with torn in their ass attitudes touting "It's open source, so if you want it, code it yourself." But just because we don't code in C doesn't mean they are better on any level than someone who isn't.

It's like my signature says. Nobody cares about the code language. However, People like us so called "wannabes" care about the quality of the code, not the quantity.

1 members found this post helpful.

In other words; complex is better than simple.

Actually, with any machine simple is better than complex. The more complex a machine is, the more things there are that can go wrong. That is why, whether guns or spacecraft, the simple machines are used dependably for many years with few or no changes, while the complex ones are frequently replaced with newer designs. Claiming simple OS designs are inferior to complicated ones is not a convincing argument in itself.

1 members found this post helpful.

They even provided all their man pages for easy reading!

http://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/

A great illustration of how new != better. Most people still fall for it though...

1 members found this post helpful.