News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Linux fu: getting started with systemd by 1oooqooq on Sunday April 14, 2024 @08:33PM (#40035837)
systemd is nothing but red hat market capture. you cannot sell Linux certification if you must teach people to code, as was the case with other inits.

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.

Re:Linux fu: getting started with systemd by PlutoIsAPlanet on Sunday April 14, 2024 @08:51PM (#40035942)
So only people who know how to code should be allowed to setup and configure system services?

What an awful way to gate keep computing.

Re:Linux fu: getting started with systemd by 1oooqooq on Sunday April 14, 2024 @09:50PM (#40036319)
no, only people who read a single manpage is already good enough. but you would complain about that too.
Re:Linux fu: getting started with systemd by constantcrying on Monday April 15, 2024 @04:35AM (#40038128)
Yes of course. If you can't read a shell script you shouldn't be doing any of that.

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.

Re:Linux fu: getting started with systemd by lyu07282 on Monday April 15, 2024 @07:51AM (#40039280)
Or perhaps declarative services are superior to shell scripting' init scripts for entirely different reasons you never thought about, and it never had anything to do with whether or not anybody can write bash scripts in the first place.
Re:Linux fu: getting started with systemd by constantcrying on Tuesday April 16, 2024 @06:26AM (#40050340)
Whether they are superior or not is irrelevant to anything I said.

If you can't read and write shell scripts you should not be allowed to perform system administration or support roles.

Re:Linux fu: getting started with systemd by msla on Tuesday April 16, 2024 @08:13PM (#40058965)
https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/linux/SystemdWhyItW...

> 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.