why do we use systemd?

[lee]

Glenn Holmer <shadowm at lyonlabs.org> writes:

> On 07/06/2014 03:53 AM, lee wrote:
>> Glenn Holmer <shadowm at lyonlabs.org> writes:
>> 
>>> On 07/05/2014 06:21 PM, Tim wrote:
>>>> Allegedly, on or about 05 July 2014, Patrick O'Callaghan sent:
>>>> The old system was considered bad, because it had 6 run levels, of which
>>>> a few of them were never used.  Now we have 12?
>>>
>>> Twelve different types of *units*, of which service and target are two.
>>> A target is like a runlevel (it groups units together), except that more
>> 
>> Then systemd is broken by design.  A shepherd is *not* a type of sheep.
>
> systemd is broken because you don't like the terms it uses? Really?

It is not true that a shepherd is a type of sheep.  Wrong usage of terms
--- or call it flawed logic --- is by design, meaning it's broken by
design, regardless whether I like it or not.

> "Target" makes perfect sense: to reach a certain target, enable the
> units in its list.

A target is not a unit then.

>> And why would so many types of units be needed?
>
> http://www.lyonlabs.org/just-rtfm.jpg

I don't want to read the documentation.  Some of it was quoted here in a
posting, and that piece was badly written and confusing.


-- 
Fedora release 20 (Heisenbug)