From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Rixuq-0005sT-KH for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 06 Jan 2012 00:44:16 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CDD3A21C035; Fri, 6 Jan 2012 00:44:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FA2221C023 for ; Fri, 6 Jan 2012 00:43:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.3] (unknown [180.158.36.130]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: patrick) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D512A1B40D3 for ; Fri, 6 Jan 2012 00:43:33 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <4F0643D8.40009@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 06 Jan 2012 08:44:08 +0800 From: Patrick Lauer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:8.0) Gecko/20111208 Thunderbird/8.0 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] rfc: locations of binaries and separate /usr References: <20120103212215.GU780@gentoo.org> <20120103230918.GA7247@linux1> <4F03A1AA.6070205@gentoo.org> <20120104091743.0e1cd91a@pomiocik.lan> <4F0440B3.4090500@gentoo.org> <20120104163734.07439f2b@pomiocik.lan> <20120104163315.GV780@gentoo.org> <20120104174742.11d7002d@pomiocik.lan> <20228.34930.732592.657243@a1i15.kph.uni-mainz.de> <20120105193024.GA8291@linux1> <20120105200844.1124e9d4@googlemail.com> <1325797329.2385.1.camel@TesterTop4> <20120105210935.48306bb9@googlemail.com> <1325798764.2385.4.camel@TesterTop4> In-Reply-To: <1325798764.2385.4.camel@TesterTop4> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: b252dc5e-d1fc-4d9e-b8c7-ed3c1e2982c3 X-Archives-Hash: d96f3c16882a8278db4bd258e9b04e1b On 01/06/12 05:26, Olivier Cr=C3=AAte wrote: [snip] > The only thing I see them sacrificing is loose coupling, they provide > more functionality than any other init system, more correctness > (seriously, did you ever read most init scripts out there?), more well > defined behavior (all systemd systems boot exactly the same), more > stability (I'll claim that Lennart's C is better than any of the > boot-time shell scripts I've seen) and well understandability depends > who much you can understand C. Probably a bit less understandable for > sysadmins, but since they can just play with config files, it's > probably easier to understand in the end (and much less prone to > breaking than mucking around shell scripts).=20 As you apparently have no idea what a sysadmin does I'd appreciate it if people like you didn't try to guess what would make things better and instead listened to people that have more than their desktop to run. (Hint: It's not pressing reset buttons) Given the choice between a single line of shell ( cat "$urandom_seed" > /dev/urandom ) or 145 lines of undocumented C (which, if naively modified by me, might just make systemd segfault) ... there is no choice. I do agree with you on one point - most init scripts are really bad code, but that doesn't mean shell is bad, it means that you need to educate people and file bugs. I've laughed at SLES' /etc/bashrc, I read most of upstart and wondered how ... why ... is it can be drunk tiem? Still that doesn't mean that rewriting it in bad C is in any way more agreeable, and you just made debugging exquisitely painful. Yey.