That's a problem with Systemd. It's a pretty decent idea with a sub-par execution and a crappy way of dealing with an inherent problem.
If by "decent" you mean "spectacularly stupid, fantastically bad, terrible to depraved depths, will never work properly", then yes.
The problems with basically anything written by poettering and crew start with them being... let's be polite here, not very good with this "software architecture" thingy. Their approaches to any problem they're setting out to solve, real or imagined, are baroque, juvenile, overly complex, brittle, prone to spectacular breakage, and so is their entire everything else.
"Their approaches to any problem they're setting out to solve, real or imagined, are baroque, juvenile, overly complex, brittle, prone to spectacular breakage, and so is their entire everything else."
The problem is moving goalposts.
There is a problem, which they spot, and most people can agree this is a problem.
Then they come up with a solution which is clean, neat, simple and wrong.
Simply, the problem is more complex than what they postulated and their solution, while working on most of it, breaks on the edge cases, which are... more than a bit numerous. And sometimes quite fundamental.
And so, instead of thinking up a different solution, that is more correct, they begin patching the caveats and edge cases in a half-assed manner one by one, building that brittle, baroque, juvenile and overly complex tower on top of the neat core. And as more and more things start falling through the cracks, they keep adding bandaids.
So their initial analysis of the problem and consequently the design of their solution falls woefully short of reality...
Yes. Something that looks good on paper. The kind of naivety found in Tom Clancy's novels, where a single clever unorthodox political move brings peace to Middle East.
... and they'll never admit they were wrong in the first place, but will just keep trying to polish that turd into solid gold.
The problem with systemd (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a problem with Systemd. It's a pretty decent idea with a sub-par execution and a crappy way of dealing with an inherent problem.
Idea: centralized place to optimize startup, management and interconnectivity of all kinds of services.
Problem: some services in their standard form don't quite fit that model.
Solution: let's rewrite them and include as parts of systemd.
The crap part: while the originals were made by experts in that field, the replacements are made by a group of wannabe experts on everything
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a problem with Systemd. It's a pretty decent idea with a sub-par execution and a crappy way of dealing with an inherent problem.
If by "decent" you mean "spectacularly stupid, fantastically bad, terrible to depraved depths, will never work properly", then yes.
The problems with basically anything written by poettering and crew start with them being... let's be polite here, not very good with this "software architecture" thingy. Their approaches to any problem they're setting out to solve, real or imagined, are baroque, juvenile, overly complex, brittle, prone to spectacular breakage, and so is their entire everything else.
Yes, there a
Re:The problem with systemd (Score:2)
"Their approaches to any problem they're setting out to solve, real or imagined, are baroque, juvenile, overly complex, brittle, prone to spectacular breakage, and so is their entire everything else."
The problem is moving goalposts.
There is a problem, which they spot, and most people can agree this is a problem.
Then they come up with a solution which is clean, neat, simple and wrong.
Simply, the problem is more complex than what they postulated and their solution, while working on most of it, breaks on the edge cases, which are... more than a bit numerous. And sometimes quite fundamental.
And so, instead of thinking up a different solution, that is more correct, they begin patching the caveats and edge cases in a half-assed manner one by one, building that brittle, baroque, juvenile and overly complex tower on top of the neat core. And as more and more things start falling through the cracks, they keep adding bandaids.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Something that looks good on paper. The kind of naivety found in Tom Clancy's novels, where a single clever unorthodox political move brings peace to Middle East.
Ego.