In article <vj16j0$30r12$1@dont-email.me>, <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote: ...

What would you say systemd does that is not related to that?

Networking, including DNS
Graphics
Logging
systemd-boot

Basically init should start the system, maintain some the running of
some essential daemons and then leave well alone.

I agree with you. But it underscores a major difference between two very different ways of thinking about computing, which can be described as "Unix-think" vs. "Windows-think".

systemd represents nothing so much as the bringing of "Windows-think" to Unix.

If one embraces "Windows-think", then systemd makes complete sense.

In fact, systemd is a lot of like the original goal of MS's "dot net",
which was to put a solid wall between the applications programmer and the actual operating system.

--
If Jeb is Charlie Brown kicking a football-pulled-away, Mitt is a '50s housewife with a black eye who insists to her friends the roast wasn't
dry.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sat, 7 Dec 2024 15:00:50 -0000 (UTC)
gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) gabbled:

In article <vj16j0$30r12$1@dont-email.me>, <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote: >....

What would you say systemd does that is not related to that?

Networking, including DNS
Graphics
Logging
systemd-boot

Basically init should start the system, maintain some the running of
some essential daemons and then leave well alone.

I agree with you. But it underscores a major difference between two very >different ways of thinking about computing, which can be described as >"Unix-think" vs. "Windows-think".

systemd represents nothing so much as the bringing of "Windows-think" to Unix.

If one embraces "Windows-think", then systemd makes complete sense.

Yes, I've heard that said before and it does ring true. I guess we should be thankful that systemd still uses text based config but I wouldn't be surprised if some Windows like binary registry isn't somewhere on the horizon. Of course Poettering has worked for MS for a long time so one can see where all his bad ideas come from.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2024-12-07, Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:

If one embraces "Windows-think", then systemd makes complete sense.

Complete Windows-think would be if systemd ran all services in the same process, so that all services die if you have to kill it.


--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 2024-12-07, Kenny McCormack <gazelle@shell.xmission.com> wrote:

In article <vj16j0$30r12$1@dont-email.me>, <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote: ...

What would you say systemd does that is not related to that?

Networking, including DNS
Graphics
Logging
systemd-boot

Basically init should start the system, maintain some the running of
some essential daemons and then leave well alone.

I agree with you. But it underscores a major difference between two very different ways of thinking about computing, which can be described as "Unix-think" vs. "Windows-think".

systemd represents nothing so much as the bringing of "Windows-think" to Unix.

If one embraces "Windows-think", then systemd makes complete sense.

In fact, systemd is a lot of like the original goal of MS's "dot net",
which was to put a solid wall between the applications programmer and the actual operating system.

Having just had a wee look at the Android init process, it looks as if
it attempts to do the same.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In article <vj1rp1$363i0$1@dont-email.me>,
Muttley@dastardlyhq.com writes:

On Sat, 7 Dec 2024 15:00:50 -0000 (UTC)
gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) gabbled:

In article <vj16j0$30r12$1@dont-email.me>, <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote: >>....

What would you say systemd does that is not related to that?

Networking, including DNS
Graphics
Logging
systemd-boot

Basically init should start the system, maintain some the running of
some essential daemons and then leave well alone.

I agree with you. But it underscores a major difference between two very >>different ways of thinking about computing, which can be described as >>"Unix-think" vs. "Windows-think".

systemd represents nothing so much as the bringing of "Windows-think" to Unix.

If one embraces "Windows-think", then systemd makes complete sense.

Yes, I've heard that said before and it does ring true. I guess we should be thankful that systemd still uses text based config but I wouldn't be surprised
if some Windows like binary registry isn't somewhere on the horizon. Of course
Poettering has worked for MS for a long time so one can see where all his bad ideas come from.j

AIX ("AIX Isn't uniX") has something like a registry, as I recall.

Even on Solaris, although the configuration files may still mostly be text, there's a tendency toward commands that do the actual configuring. In a way, that's safer since they can offer sanity checks before changes actually take effect.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 14.12.2024 10:09, Richard L. Hamilton wrote:

AIX ("AIX Isn't uniX") [...]

Since I've never heard that I was tempted to ask whether that's
true or a joke; a quick look into the Web suggested "Advanced
Interactive eXecutive". - I admit your interpretation is nicer.

Janis

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)