nanog mailing list archives
Re: Linux: concerns over systemd adoption and Debian's decision to switch [OT]
From: Stephen Satchell <list () satchell net>
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2014 10:22:44 -0700
On 10/25/2014 08:12 AM, Jeffrey Ollie wrote:
If all of the scripts are cut'n'paste copes of each other, wouldn't it be better to figure out a way to stop cutting and pasting? I can't count the number of times I've run into problems with my code because of that, never mind how many times it's happened in other people's code.
I suggest that the corruption and rot was introduced when we left /etc/inittab as the sole way to run permanent daemons. We had telinit(8) already to change run levels, so expanding on telinit would have been more sensible -- telinit itself to change temporarily things temporarily (start, stop, restart), and something that modified the inittab (editor? script? GUI?) to make changes that last across boots. The first change would be to expand the daemon identifier from two characters to proper labels...but I digress. The whole rc script thing strikes me as an interim solution that required a minimum of code changes (graduate student project?) that went viral. Bad as it was, it worked. Duct tape and bailing wire.... Why did we have copy-and-paste for so long? The answer is in the form of another question: who was willing to take the time to re-factor the Sys-V way of doing things? Was "re-factor" even in the vocabulary in those days? Systemd is not a re-factoring. It's a from-scratch do-over. What it does that is good is that it provides dependency capability not available in the original inittab. It makes dependency resolution named-based (named semaphores) instead of number-based, which is what the Sys-V method used. The result is far more parallelism in system start-up than afforded by ethier of the previous methods. (I can't speak to Upstart -- I've never really understood it, or how to go from SysV to Upstart. I even filed a bug on this last point against Upstart, and saw not even "you stupid ****". Will it die?) Much of the heartburn I've been observing isn't about core systemd itself, or the goals of systemd itself, but about the culture that had grown around this replacement for the gaggle of shell scripts and the one-line-per-daemon table. Like a gun, the weapon doesn't kill people; it's the operator behind the trigger who is aiming the business end in bad directions. Much of the belly-aching has been about ripple effects that are tangential to systemd itself -- it's unfortunate that these tangents are tied to systemd, it's been said time and time again "you don't like it, you can do something about it." It means you can't use the entire package "out of the box" without changing more than a set of configuration files. My particular bone is NTP substitution -- I'd like to use my cesium clock on my Stratum 1 time server without having to spend an afternoon trying to hork everything together. I'd like for my Stratum II time server to work "out of the box" with the time servers *I* select, using the University of Delaware software. Oh, and I hate binary logs. Period. If you can't stand plain text, then try XML. At least humans have a *chance* to read it without having to make fancy reader tools.
Current thread:
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd adoption and Debian's decision to switch [OT], (continued)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd adoption and Debian's decision to switch [OT] Zachary (Oct 23)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd adoption and Debian's decision to switch [OT] Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 23)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd adoption and Debian's decision to switch [OT] Lamar Owen (Oct 23)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd adoption and Debian's decision to switch [OT] Jay Ashworth (Oct 24)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd adoption and Debian's decision to switch [OT] Stephen Satchell (Oct 23)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd adoption and Debian's decision to switch [OT] Barry Shein (Oct 23)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd adoption and Debian's decision to switch [OT] Tei (Oct 24)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd adoption and Debian's decision to switch [OT] Lamar Owen (Oct 24)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd adoption and Debian's decision to switch [OT] Jim Mercer (Oct 24)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd adoption and Debian's decision to switch [OT] Jeffrey Ollie (Oct 25)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd adoption and Debian's decision to switch [OT] Stephen Satchell (Oct 25)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd adoption and Debian's decision to switch [OT] Matthew Petach (Oct 25)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd adoption and Debian's decision to switch [OT] Peter Baldridge (Oct 25)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd adoption and Debian's decision to switch [OT] Matt Palmer (Oct 25)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd adoption and Debian's decision to switch [OT] Matt Palmer (Oct 25)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd adoption and Debian's decision to switch [OT] Lamar Owen (Oct 27)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd adoption and Debian's decision to switch [OT] Jimmy Hess (Oct 25)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd adoption and Debian's decision to switch [OT] Valdis . Kletnieks (Oct 26)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd adoption and Debian's decision to switch [OT] Tim Franklin (Oct 24)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd adoption and Debian's decision to switch Rich Kulawiec (Oct 22)
- Re: Linux: concerns over systemd adoption and Debian's decision to switch Stephen Satchell (Oct 22)