nobody write code to get a mcse. there's a reason they were called mouse clicking solutions expert. redhat wants that too. faster and cheaper certification.
and yes it's a stupid plan. but everything noteworthy on Linux was contributed by companies. either when nobody was looking what a programmer was doing, or when some old code get donated, or thanks to stupid plans like this.
so we took it. it's not worse than before, and hopefully mr systemd will get bored counting money at Microsoft now and let the project evolve to something sane.
What an awful way to gate keep computing.
As a private individual you can obviously do whatever you want with your system, but if your job is technical support you need to be able to understand and write code at a basic level.
Nowadays everybody who has a technical job has to learn how to write code. It doesn't matter what that technical role is, but only will be more and more of a prerequisite to do anything.
If you can't read and write shell scripts you should not be allowed to perform system administration or support roles.
> The reason systemd has succeeded in becoming an SysV init replacement is simple: it did the work. Not only did it put together a lot of good ideas regardless of their novelty or lack thereof but its developers put in the time and effort to convince people that it was a good idea, the right answer, a good solution to problems and so on. Then they dealt with lots and lots of practical concerns, backwards compatibility, corner cases, endless arguments, and so on and so forth. I want to specifically mention here that one of the things the systemd people did was write extensive documentation on systemd's design, how to configure and operate it, and what sorts of neat things you can do with it. While this documentation is not perfect, most init systems are an order of magnitude less well documented.
[snip]
> You can call this marketing if you want, although I don't think that that's a useful label for what is really happening. I call this 'trying' versus 'not trying'. If you don't try hard and work hard to become a replacement init system, it should be no surprise when you don't.
[snip]
> Since that may not be clear, let me be plain: systemd is a better init system than the alternatives. It does more to solve real problems and it does it better. That alone is a good reason for it to win in the practical world, the one where people care about getting stuff done. That systemd is not necessarily novel or the first to come up with the ideas that it embodies is irrelevant to this. Implementation matters more than ideas.
I am not against new software, but if using a new piece of software, requires replacing dozens of other system components, then something is going very wrong.
The thought process behind people at Redhat who think "We need a new system logger, you know the init system is the perfect place to develop that" is just inexplicable to me.
for relatively obvious reasons
I like having my system boot faster because systemd takes care of lazily mounting my hard drives in the background.
Also, any init system can do lazy mounting without having the fstab file becoming a farce.
>You can probably puzzle most of that out.
That's hilarious. No, you can not. Why is there a "WantedBy" for multi-user.target when it is started "After" network.target and auditd.service? If you understand systemd the answer is obvious, but if you don't this should confuse you.
>It can replace inetd, syslog, and many other traditional services.
On Ubuntu it replaced the fstab.
>This is a benefit or a drawback, depending on your point of view.
I don't know from which perspective it is good to have one program extend itself into random unrelated areas and absorb their functionality into itself. Certainly no university course or anyone I ever worked with had that perspective. Usually people talked about defining and limiting scope and having a clear vision of what your software should do.
I think the "Unix Philosophy" debate is largely silly, mostly because it misses the point. Regardless of what some people in the 80s thought about UNIX system programming, it is bad software engineering to not have a defined scope for your software and let it sprawl endlessly.
Whether software should do one thing only is neither here nor there, but it certainly shouldn't do a couple dozen unrelated things while replacing perfectly functional existing system software.