1 |
* Olivier Crête schrieb am 06.01.12 um 03:15 Uhr: |
2 |
> On Fri, 2012-01-06 at 08:44 +0800, Patrick Lauer wrote: |
3 |
> > On 01/06/12 05:26, Olivier Crête wrote: |
4 |
> > [snip] |
5 |
> > > The only thing I see them sacrificing is loose coupling, they provide |
6 |
> > > more functionality than any other init system, more correctness |
7 |
> > > (seriously, did you ever read most init scripts out there?), more well |
8 |
> > > defined behavior (all systemd systems boot exactly the same), more |
9 |
> > > stability (I'll claim that Lennart's C is better than any of the |
10 |
> > > boot-time shell scripts I've seen) and well understandability depends |
11 |
> > > who much you can understand C. Probably a bit less understandable for |
12 |
> > > sysadmins, but since they can just play with config files, it's |
13 |
> > > probably easier to understand in the end (and much less prone to |
14 |
> > > breaking than mucking around shell scripts). |
15 |
> > As you apparently have no idea what a sysadmin does I'd appreciate it if |
16 |
> > people like you didn't try to guess what would make things better and |
17 |
> > instead listened to people that have more than their desktop to run. |
18 |
> > (Hint: It's not pressing reset buttons) |
19 |
> |
20 |
> I know what they do.. play in random scripts until whatever they're |
21 |
> trying to hack together it seems to work, because oh well, its just a |
22 |
> one time thing.. and then when stuff breaks they call Red Hat's support |
23 |
> line. |
24 |
|
25 |
Oh, Are you really telling that the freedom of being able to "play |
26 |
in random scripts" is a bad thing and that its better to make this |
27 |
impossible by hiding everything in compiled binaries? |
28 |
|
29 |
To me its kind of arrogant to think that the "everage admin" is too |
30 |
stupid to handle her system properly. Sure there are admins that do |
31 |
bad "one time things" with scripts. So what. Is this a reason to |
32 |
prevent anyone from doing so? |
33 |
|
34 |
Do you think there are also good admins, that are able to FIX a bug |
35 |
in a script? |
36 |
|
37 |
And about RedHat support: They PAY for being able USE it! |
38 |
|
39 |
> > Given the choice between a single line of shell ( cat "$urandom_seed" > |
40 |
> > /dev/urandom ) or 145 lines of undocumented C (which, if naively |
41 |
> > modified by me, might just make systemd segfault) ... there is no choice. |
42 |
> |
43 |
> Actually, you don't have to do that, systemd does it for you and takes |
44 |
> care of all the annoying details [1]. |
45 |
|
46 |
Yeah. And systemd will be 100% bugfree! Always! Granted! |
47 |
|
48 |
|
49 |
> That said, you can trivially disable systemd-random-seed-save.service |
50 |
> and systemd-random-seed-load.service and instead write a unit file that |
51 |
> runs whatever you want. You don't HAVE to do any C to run stuff from |
52 |
> systemd, but it does provide many things written in C that are much more |
53 |
> solid than the shell equivalents. |
54 |
|
55 |
And if just ONE bug exists that wil make systemd segfault? A faulty |
56 |
script will only fail to do the action it was made for (most |
57 |
propably) ... |
58 |
|
59 |
> > I do agree with you on one point - most init scripts are really bad |
60 |
> > code, but that doesn't mean shell is bad, it means that you need to |
61 |
> > educate people and file bugs. I've laughed at SLES' /etc/bashrc, I read |
62 |
> > most of upstart and wondered how ... why ... is it can be drunk tiem? |
63 |
> > Still that doesn't mean that rewriting it in bad C is in any way more |
64 |
> > agreeable, and you just made debugging exquisitely painful. Yey. |
65 |
> |
66 |
> The big reason for C vs shell scripts is that the type of people who |
67 |
> write them are not the same.. The type of people who write shell scripts |
68 |
> tend to hack together stuff until it works. |
69 |
|
70 |
This is plain wrong and insulting. You can do more bad things with C |
71 |
than you can do with a shell. |
72 |
|
73 |
|
74 |
> The people who write C tend |
75 |
> to think about the problem for a long time and then write a complete |
76 |
> solution that tries to take into account all of the possible error |
77 |
> scenarios. |
78 |
|
79 |
I would be happy if it was really like that... |
80 |
|
81 |
-Marc |
82 |
-- |
83 |
8AAC 5F46 83B4 DB70 8317 3723 296C 6CCA 35A6 4134 |