why do we use systemd?

[lee]

Glenn Holmer <shadowm at lyonlabs.org> writes:

> But when someone replies to that by saying that systemd is broken
> because "a shepherd is not a sheep", well... that's just splitting
> grammatical hairs to try and prove that the documentation is obtuse.

Then you haven't thought far enough.  The documentation is poorly
written, an approach is used which is plain wrong and thus confusing,
there is no clarity of terms, concepts and structure.  The authors of
systemd don't even understand what "disabled" means.

When they have all this wrongness, confusion, obfuscation and lack of
clarity and simplicity in the documentation, how could the source of the
program be any better?  Why should I think that the design of the
software is any better than the documentation?  It's probably far worse.

Look at the documentation for exim to see an example for good
documentation.  You'll see that things are very well thought out, and
the documentation is entirely clear.  I suppose the source of exim goes
along with that.


That I don't want to read poor documentation is one thing.  That I don't
want to read documentation to do a simple thing --- i. e. start a daemon
--- is another.  If not systemd but sysvinit was used, I wouldn't need
to read any documentation to achieve this because I have already read
the documentation.

But no, thanks to systemd it's anything but simple to do something
simple, and I'm forced to waste my time with reading poor documentation.

It's even of no advantage to me to read this documentation because the
only thing it applies to is systemd.  It's way more advantageous for me
to learn to write shell scripts which I can use with sysvinit and for
other things as well.  Learning how to create the so-called entities
systemd requires is not useful for anything but systemd, so systemd is
highly inefficient.


-- 
Fedora release 20 (Heisenbug)