Tony van der Hoff wrote:
> I know it's a sensitive subject, and I really don't want to upset the list,
> there's been enough of that already, but why are some people so afraid of
> systemd?
My reasons:
Can't debug the start / stop of daemons as good as before. "(ba)sh -x" no
more working.
Not able to move easily a more complex SysV init script to systemd. Lost
functionality by my home-made packages.
Logging (journald) disables searching in /var/log: "grep -r" not really
working there.
My computer "hickups" for 20 seconds at boot. With systemd I don't have
the slighest idea which process delays, as several processes start after
the delay at once. I had the feeling with Init scripts it was more obvious
to see which "startup file" hangs.
As others say: systemd is too fat and has too much functionality. It
throws too fast the experienced software overboard, replacing it by its
own version.
Its flooding syslog/messages with unnecessary information (type: INFO).
But some important messages are not found in syslog nor messages.
No easy way to find out: if and what fails. Example: After months I found
out that mlocate doesn't update it's database anymore: previously updates
were done by cron, but the distri moved to systemd's way (timer) and by
default the updatedb was disabled.
Default values without files: configuration files are not required, but
then some default values are used. You have to know which file by which
filename has to be created and how the variables/values are named. Not to
mention the lack of documentation for some configuration files.
Best regards,
Klaus.
--
Klaus Singvogel
GnuPG-Key-ID: 1024R/5068792D 1994-06-27
