why do we use systemd?

[David Benfell]

lee writes:

> David Benfell <benfell at parts-unknown.org> writes:
>
> Why should it be seen separately?  Poorly chosen terms is a feature of
> systemd like any other it may have, and this feature leads straightaway
> to unexpected and undesired results when used.  That the authors even
> deny fixing it is ... well, I'm not sure how to call that.

I guess the two questions I'm reaching for are:

1) Is systemd conceptually broken, just a really bad idea from the start?  
Some people say yes, and some of them argue well.

2) Or, is it just that systemd is buried underneath an avalanche of  
horrendous documentation and poorly chosen terminology?

To these, I might add a third:

3) Is systemd simply too large a leap to be wise? Clearly, many folks in  
the distributions are enamored with it; they're all adopting it. As is  
apparent here, some users like it as well (and if we succumb to a false  
dichotomy, well, I'm not all that wild about sysvinit scripts either). And  
a certain amount of the rebuttal to opponents seems to be of the sort that  
we should just take the time to learn it.
>
>> I guess the concept of 'mask' is as in to disguise, as in to hide. For
>> me, that's two steps of abstraction and I don't normally infer the
>> second from the first. So it throws me too.
>
> When something is disguised or hidden, it is not disabled.  It is
> camouflaged or concealed.  Camouflage, concealment, hiding, disguise and
> masking can all be used for *preventing* from being disabled.

Fair enough.

-- 
David Benfell
See https://parts-unknown.org/node/2 if you do not understand the  
attachment.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20140709/fa82bb10/attachment.sig>