Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Could it be the Community Might Actually Want systemd?

posted by janrinok on Thursday November 20 2014, @09:25PM   Printer-friendly
from the or-at-least-not-be-bothered-either-way dept.

[Ed's Comment: Not wishing to ignite yet another flame war regarding the adoption of systemd, I hesitated before publishing this story. However, although it is not an formal survey, it might still reflect the views of the greater linux user community rather than those who frequent this particular site. There is no need to restate the arguments seen over the last few weeks - they are well known and understood - but the survey might have a point.]

Konomi writes:

http://q5sys.sh has recenlty conducted a survey finding many Linux users may be in favour of systemd:

First off lets keep one thing in mind, this was not a professional survey. As such the results need to be taken as nothing more than the opinions of the 4755 individuals who responded. While the survey responses show that 47% of the respondents are in favor of systemd, that does not mean that 47% of the overall linux community is in favor of systemd. The actual value may be higher or lower. This is simply a small capture of our overall community.

Although the author questions the results could this be an indication that we're really seeing a vocal minority who don't want systemd while the silent majority either do or simply don't care? Poll results and the original blog post.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Could it be the Community Might Actually Want systemd? | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 149 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday November 21 2014, @08:53AM

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Friday November 21 2014, @08:53AM (#118420) Homepage
    This isnt straightforward: "Do not write something like ExecStart=/bin/sh /path/to/script.sh because that will not work."

    Why doesn't it work? Is it command line parameters ("/path/to/script.sh") being passed to the program ("/bin/sh") that don't work? Do I conclude that the program may not take any command line parameters? The power of unix-alikes is the power of the command line, the power to parameterise things. If programs may simply run, be launched, and only do one thing, they're no better than icons on a desktop which you click to activate - they're nothing but a "do it" button. What if I want the program started with more verbose debug logging enabled? Can I not add the "-v" switch to the execstart line?

    This sounds like a massive step backwards in user-friendliness (for those users who wish to be in control of their systems, rather than just click "do it" buttons).
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 21 2014, @12:17PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 21 2014, @12:17PM (#118446)

    I think I have figured it out. If you have a .sh to launch on init with parms then you create a second .sh to call the .sh required with the parms needed. Then add a service in systemd/system to that intermediate .sh

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 21 2014, @09:52PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 21 2014, @09:52PM (#118607)

      RTFM you noobs...

      Note that this setting does not directly support shell command lines. If shell command lines are to be used, they need to be passed explicitly to a shell implementation of some kind. Example:

      ExecStart=/bin/sh -c 'dmesg | tac'