Once you go mini...

[Nigel Kersten]

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 1:35 PM, ibi sum <ibisum at gmail.com> wrote:

> > So I find this really interesting. I believe launchd (and SMF) have been
> overwhelming successes, and many of the things that make OS X awesome are
> enabled by moving away from the static and explicit dependencies of
> SystemStarter to the dynamic world of launchd.
> > I don't see developers or admins complain about launchd anymore at all.
>
> How many OSX servers are out there?  Compared to (“still using sysvinit-*
> scripts”) Linux systems?  I know of *one* person who runs OSX server live
> on the Internet, compared to 10’s of 1000’s of people who are doing it
> otherwise.
>
> You don’t see complaints because nobody is trying to do it to the same
> extent that Linux-based servers.
>

launchd is a key enabler of what makes OS X a good *client* OS, and I do
believe the same kind of dynamism is needed in the modern era for servers.

OS X Server is so tiny it's not even worth talking about as a topic IMHO.


>
> > Why do you hate launchd?
>
> Because its no longer self-documenting.  You have to dig deep into
> launch.plist files to try to understand anything, many of which are not
> documented, and of which you have no real control/understanding until you
> grok some non-existent/hard-to-find documentation that *might* tell you
> what some of the keys mean, or may not, or some of the values, or may not.
>

SystemStarter was plists too! Your argument here might hold against
sysvinit -> systemd, but it doesn't hold for SystemStarter -> launchd at
all.

The StartupItem format was just as obscure as launchd.


>
> The beauty of the sysvinit-*/rc* approach was that it was all
> self-documented.  You just had to read the script to understand what it was
> doing, and that was all.  And I think that is the crux of the hatred for
> systemd/launchd.  systemd is an attempt to make administering a Linux
> machine more esoteric, more elite and more ‘exclusive’ to those who ‘do not
> hate systemd enough to understand it well’, which will be a much smaller
> set of people than those who can actually read sysvinit-* scripts, because
> they’re written in the same language that is supported and used throughout
> the rest of the system.
>

Well this is a clear agree-to-disagree point :) Many SysV init scripts
passed the point of clear self-documentation a long time ago.


>
> systemd is a power grab by a self-elected elite, a true and real cabal,
> and thats why the hate.  I think your arguments for it are also aligned
> along this axis in many ways - systemd will create a new walled garden into
> which Linux sysadmins will be corralled, weaned and neutered.  Gone are the
> days when anyone can understand the arcane mechanics of system boot-time
> configuration by just reading the code that does the work .. now, there
> will need to be training courses, and new books written, and new CM tools
> marketed to the masses ..
>
>
Oh man, that's totally not where I'm coming from personally, and I think
you've completely misdiagnosed the situation.

systemd actually reduces the required surface area of tools like the one
that pays my bills right now. If my main impetus was marketing software to
the masses I'd be arguing heavily *against* systemd.

I'm just not in that sort of evangelism phase with any technology at all
right now.

I'm growing increasingly disenchanted with the entire tech industry and my
ability to shift the needle via my company in any meaningful sense, and
seriously considering just working out how to retire to a farm full of
synthesizers with a river nearby.

If anything I ever say on this list looks like I'm shilling, that's never
my intent, and it's something I'd hate to even accidentally do.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.music-bar.org/pipermail/music-bar/attachments/20150225/a8e84de7/attachment.html>