nanog mailing list archives
Re: Linux: concerns over systemd adoption and Debian's decision to switch
From: * <turmoil () privacyrequired com>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 09:57:07 -0700
On 10/21/2014 05:20 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
The all-in-one approach of systemd might have a place on some specialized desktop distros, but outside that niche its' IMO a terrible idea. The proper fix is probably a go back to Upstart or SysVInit and rewrite systemd, so all the pieces are separated and exist as a higher layer on top of init.
That is how systemd works, there are many parts and "systemd" is the sum of all those parts. It has a PID1 that replaces sysvinit/upstart, but afaik it doesn't do a whole lot extra. I don't use systemd, and I don't know a lot about it, but it seems lots of people don't get that it's not all lumped in PID1, there are a lot of processes that do different things that are mostly tightly held together (I think only udev and a couple other things still work without the rest of systemd.) Then again, the systemd people do spread FUD about sysvinit as well, Poettering's own blog for example even misleads on how systemd and sysvinit work http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/why.html A lot of things in the comparison chart have sysvinit listed as "no", when it's obviously not init's job directly, but a subprocess/script, except it lists "yes" for systemd on some, where systemd still passes it off to a subprocess! (They really are taking advantage of the PID1 and the entire bundle of software both being named "systemd" I guess.) [Insert obligatory "No I don't think sysvinit is perfect, but..." here] ps. What's with all the fear/hate of shell scripts? I realize the init scripts on most Linux distros are messy (200 LOC just to start sshd? Come on debian.) but the solution isn't to run away from them; rewrite scripts to have saner logic and not do a dozen redundant/unnecessary checks.
Current thread:
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd adoption and Debian's decision to switch, (continued)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd adoption and Debian's decision to switch Stephen Satchell (Oct 22)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd adoption and Debian's decision to switch Barry Shein (Oct 22)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd adoption and Debian's decision to switch Barry Shein (Oct 22)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd adoption and Debian's decision to switch Eugeniu Patrascu (Oct 21)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd adoption and Debian's decision to switch Jim Popovitch (Oct 21)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd adoption and Debian's decision to switch Rahul Sawarkar (Oct 23)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd adoption and Debian's decision to switch joe mcguckin (Oct 21)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd adoption and Debian's decision to switch Jimmy Hess (Oct 21)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd adoption and Debian's decision to switch Matt Palmer (Oct 21)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd adoption and Debian's decision to switch Andre Tomt (Oct 22)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd adoption and Debian's decision to switch * (Oct 23)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd adoption and Debian's decision to switch Jim Popovitch (Oct 23)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd adoption and Debian's decision to switch Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 23)
- RE: Linux: concerns over systemd adoption and Debian's decision to switch Jeff Masiello (Oct 24)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd adoption and Debian's decision to switch Matt Palmer (Oct 21)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd adoption and Debian's decision to switch Miles Fidelman (Oct 21)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT] Andrew Sullivan (Oct 21)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT] Christopher Morrow (Oct 21)