Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> What's the advantage to ...

For me personally, I'd say "not much". I'm used to using the latter form, and it's fine. But I will say that now that I know about this, I see using it in scenarios where I'm running a lot of systemctl commands over and over again in close proximity and have the "muscle memory" of typing "systemctl" more in mind.

For example, when working with a new service that isn't quite working right yet, and doing many iterations of:

    $> systemctl start something.service
    $> systemctl status something.service
    $> journalctl -xeu something.service
    $> emacs whatever
    $> systemctl start something.service
    $> systemctl status something.service
    lather, rinse, repeat
Especially if I'm testing on my laptop AND a remote deployment, I think it's easier from a cognitive viewpoint to always "think systemctl" instead of having to "think systemctl" sometimes and "think ssh systemctl" in others.

To be fair though, it's all a pretty minor point. But I do think it's cool that systemctl has that option. shrug



But that seems worse? If all your commands are systemctl, then you just have to ^p and edit/rerun, but there isn't a `systemctl $EDITOR /some/file`, so you'll have to ssh to run emacs (or use TRAMP, if using emacs), at which point you might as well just have a shell on the other end and do everything without having to tack --host onto your commands


I don't know. Maybe. It seems like something that could be handy, but I don't yet know how much I'll wind up using it. For what it's worth, I was working on a scenario exactly like this earlier tonight, and I wound up just ssh'ing into a shell on the remote box to do stuff. But that might just be inertia from being used to doing that, or maybe it was because I had a lot of other stuff to do on that box at the same time...




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: