Pit me against some legacy holdout. Give us both a set of services and complex work to do in a real-world, representative, environment. I don't care what it is.
I guarantee my setup using "timers" will be delivered earlier and prove to be more robust; it's already been written and battle tested. It's ready as soon as I can SSH or clone my repository.
I just hear a bunch of self-selecting [read: made up] surface level complaints. Why is anyone editing these jobs so much to care if it's one file or two? Why not zero? Around two decades after 'cron' the concept of 'Configuration Management' was established.
What's more, interfacing to disable/stop on the regular isn't required with dependencies or relationships defined; the result is implicit. I didn't even mention 'PartOf=' or 'OnFailure=', more settings that allow for handling external influence.
The system will work for you, let it. I've soared through the ranks with this one simple trick: adaptation. The work isn't as unique as it is presented.
Pit me against some legacy holdout. Give us both a set of services and complex work to do in a real-world, representative, environment. I don't care what it is.
I guarantee my setup using "timers" will be delivered earlier and prove to be more robust; it's already been written and battle tested. It's ready as soon as I can SSH or clone my repository.
I just hear a bunch of self-selecting [read: made up] surface level complaints. Why is anyone editing these jobs so much to care if it's one file or two? Why not zero? Around two decades after 'cron' the concept of 'Configuration Management' was established.
What's more, interfacing to disable/stop on the regular isn't required with dependencies or relationships defined; the result is implicit. I didn't even mention 'PartOf=' or 'OnFailure=', more settings that allow for handling external influence.
The system will work for you, let it. I've soared through the ranks with this one simple trick: adaptation. The work isn't as unique as it is presented.