1 |
I agree with Paul Varner's comment. |
2 |
|
3 |
There are places where a tight-coupling makes sense (the kernel) and places |
4 |
where it doesn't (system admin and userspace development.) |
5 |
|
6 |
My objections to the systemd plans is philosophical. There are some |
7 |
folks who want to make Linux |
8 |
into a Desktop System environment that works out of the box in the |
9 |
manner of Windows. There are reasons to do this, |
10 |
and there are reasons not to do this. On the one hand, to compete |
11 |
with MS Windows one must become MS Windows; |
12 |
on the other hand. doing that cuts deeply into the things that make |
13 |
Linux (and all the *NIX's) powerful and adaptable. |
14 |
|
15 |
When SysVInit was developed (circa 1981) there were serious |
16 |
limitations on the hardware it ran on in terms of speed |
17 |
and memory. Additionally, there were missing software algorithms and |
18 |
methods to solve some of the problems it |
19 |
had to deal with. A decision was made to punt some of the problems to |
20 |
a capable human mind rather than to spend |
21 |
precious time and resources trying to solve them computationally. This |
22 |
is, of course, the need for the admins to look at |
23 |
the services dependency graph and let them adjust the startup |
24 |
sequencing by hand. |
25 |
|
26 |
Hardware capabilities and software methods advanced quite fast and Sys |
27 |
V Init (being standardized) did not keep |
28 |
up with the times. Various extensions and replacements for the |
29 |
Init/startup methods were developed, and most |
30 |
added dependency descriptions and automatic solving to the mix, while |
31 |
trying to preserve the ease of using shell scripts |
32 |
for getting things done. OpenRC is one of the contenders and it is |
33 |
highly adaptable as new technologies are |
34 |
introduced (such as automatic device configuration a la eudev.) |
35 |
|
36 |
Systemd's method, though, rips out huge chunks of many different |
37 |
system components and replaced them with a |
38 |
monolithic structure that takes control of everything between the |
39 |
kernel's construction of the first process and the |
40 |
startup of the selected desktop environment. It also imposes strict |
41 |
interface requirements on the API of service |
42 |
daemon startup and which desktop environments it wants to support. |
43 |
|
44 |
The monolithic structure and resource requirements severely limit the |
45 |
hardware that can be used (to fairly recent |
46 |
amounts of memory and processor speed.) This, like Microsoft's |
47 |
methods, leaves a lot of not-so-old hardware |
48 |
out in the cold in a forced obsolescence. |
49 |
|
50 |
Additioinally, the development methods used, and the future plans for |
51 |
systemd, make it clear that its objective |
52 |
is to make a tighly integrated system that can compete with Microsoft |
53 |
in its own arena. [And don't get me started |
54 |
on the personalities involved!] |
55 |
|
56 |
I use systemd when required, and I can even tweak the internals when |
57 |
necessary. But for my own use, I much |
58 |
prefer the freedom to customize and construct things on my own. |
59 |
Perhaps I am and "old fogey" living in the past, |
60 |
but I think some other folks would object to that characterization. I |
61 |
have been involved in computing since 1958, |
62 |
and have made (and continue to make) some significant contributions to |
63 |
the field (even if my name is not publicly |
64 |
associated with them.) I have been in the trenches of (F)OSS for a |
65 |
long time and would love to see Linux+GNU |
66 |
in a significant number of non-technical users' hand and homes. |
67 |
However, I do not think that the only way to |
68 |
accomplish that is by becoming another Microsoft. |
69 |
|
70 |
This discussion should not be about which system is better or worse. |
71 |
There should be room in the concept space |
72 |
that preserves to ability to choose what a person wants on their |
73 |
machine, rather than having the environment |
74 |
dictated by some corporate entity looking to achieve market dominance. |
75 |
The "average users" these days have |
76 |
no concept of the magic behind the buttons on the screen and the |
77 |
keyboard, and most are just willing to consider |
78 |
the devices unrepairable when they fail and just go get another one. |
79 |
The advertising driven consumer culture |
80 |
really doesn't want the consumers' to know what is going on behind the |
81 |
scenes. but it still requires that some |
82 |
do know and can keep the infrastructure running and advancing. |
83 |
|
84 |
That is enough ranting for now. Carry on. |
85 |
|
86 |
-- |
87 |
G.Wolfe Woodbury |
88 |
redwolfe@×××××.com |