Problem 0: Yes sysinit has problems but systemd brings even more problems (journalctl, PID 1, dependancy Hell ++, undeterministic bootup process)
Systemd is a broken silver bullet for handling the decrease in quality of packaging.
There are problems with sysinit: the first one is the missing link between devs and syadmins in companies: people known as packagers.
For a sysinit to work well shell scripts, permissions, where resources are located, the dependency management has to be done with art and expertise. It is a human job with human which are:
1) a very skilled rare resource,
2) not identified has needed by companies,
3) company's software QA is shitty (it has barely the level it works for me (tm) of quality
Talking about debian, which is considered the distribution with the most talented packagers debian has 2 flows in this domain:
* too rigid:
projects goes for logical units of packaging that are consistent and organization of assets in packages that can ease maintaining. Debian has its guideline that makes them «fix» poorly packaged softwares like lateX, python, ruby: cutting language distro in at least runtime, dev, extra.
Debian packagers are often debian experts, not upstream software package experts and they first break some stuffs (latex is so poorly packaged on debian it can be considered broken), AND it adds more works
* too much features
typical linux distro compared to BSD are pacakging fucking more packages in their core resulting in more work; less attentions to the details and conflicts of functionality/overlaps.
This result in more resource drained from the packagers.
Like we have 4 shells considered OK for writing shell related stuff, when they have only one: «sh».
The problem of linux vs BSD is symbolized by the systemd vs sysinit: linux is an OS of devops that are super devops, poor coders and sysadmins, BSD is an OS of sysadmins and devs that are good sysadmins and devs, but no devops.
And we still lack in 2014 of maintainer, sysadmins and coders of quality.
Linux/Gnome ... FSF projects are not sustainable in these conditions. They think of free software has an infinite resource of benevolence. And they exponentially overblow the works required for maintaining, deploying ... thus they are mathematically doomed to die under their own weight.
I see BSD as a calvinist boring protestant community turned towards humility doing what is right and linuces as catholic exhuberant rockstars over spending the good will of developers without thinking of the future.
Being lutherian, I still dream of THE right OS that would less terse than BSD.
Systemd is a broken silver bullet for handling the decrease in quality of packaging.
There are problems with sysinit: the first one is the missing link between devs and syadmins in companies: people known as packagers.
For a sysinit to work well shell scripts, permissions, where resources are located, the dependency management has to be done with art and expertise. It is a human job with human which are:
1) a very skilled rare resource, 2) not identified has needed by companies, 3) company's software QA is shitty (it has barely the level it works for me (tm) of quality
Talking about debian, which is considered the distribution with the most talented packagers debian has 2 flows in this domain:
* too rigid: projects goes for logical units of packaging that are consistent and organization of assets in packages that can ease maintaining. Debian has its guideline that makes them «fix» poorly packaged softwares like lateX, python, ruby: cutting language distro in at least runtime, dev, extra. Debian packagers are often debian experts, not upstream software package experts and they first break some stuffs (latex is so poorly packaged on debian it can be considered broken), AND it adds more works
* too much features typical linux distro compared to BSD are pacakging fucking more packages in their core resulting in more work; less attentions to the details and conflicts of functionality/overlaps. This result in more resource drained from the packagers. Like we have 4 shells considered OK for writing shell related stuff, when they have only one: «sh».
The problem of linux vs BSD is symbolized by the systemd vs sysinit: linux is an OS of devops that are super devops, poor coders and sysadmins, BSD is an OS of sysadmins and devs that are good sysadmins and devs, but no devops.
And we still lack in 2014 of maintainer, sysadmins and coders of quality.
Linux/Gnome ... FSF projects are not sustainable in these conditions. They think of free software has an infinite resource of benevolence. And they exponentially overblow the works required for maintaining, deploying ... thus they are mathematically doomed to die under their own weight.
I see BSD as a calvinist boring protestant community turned towards humility doing what is right and linuces as catholic exhuberant rockstars over spending the good will of developers without thinking of the future.
Being lutherian, I still dream of THE right OS that would less terse than BSD.