1 |
On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 3:53 PM, Daniel Campbell <lists@××××××××.us> wrote: |
2 |
> On 08/19/2013 12:52 AM, Mark David Dumlao wrote: |
3 |
>> On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 5:54 AM, pk <peterk2@××××××××.se> wrote: |
4 |
>>> On 2013-08-18 23:08, Mick wrote: |
5 |
>>> |
6 |
>>>> I honestly cannot understand why we/Gentoo are allowing the RHL |
7 |
>>>> monolithic development philosophy to break what we have. Is |
8 |
>>>> Poettering the only developer available to the Linux world? Are |
9 |
>>>> RHL dictating what path Debian and its cousin distros should |
10 |
>>>> follow? |
11 |
>>> |
12 |
>>> Problem is that Linux is dependent on udev and udev is in the hands of |
13 |
>>> Kay Sievers which also develops systemd together with Lennart |
14 |
>>> Poettering which in turn used to be a Gnome developer... With that |
15 |
>>> said, what I cannot understand is why people advocating systemd (and |
16 |
>>> the kitchen-and-sink model) are using Gentoo in the first place. Are |
17 |
>>> they just trying to make the rest of the Linux distro landscape as |
18 |
>>> miserable as Fedora? Why don't they stay with Fedora instead of trying |
19 |
>>> to turn Gentoo into Fedora? |
20 |
>>> |
21 |
>> |
22 |
>> This kind of response has been repeatedly grating on my nerves |
23 |
>> on this mailing list. It's just so TECHNICALLY WRONG, but more than |
24 |
>> that I feel that it hints at a deeper problem about user attitudes and the |
25 |
>> need to act like a know-it-all that is so prevalent on this mailing list. |
26 |
>> |
27 |
>> Systemd is _not_ a monolithic design. I don't know how anyone who |
28 |
>> has taken even a casual glance at it, or its documentation, can say |
29 |
>> otherwise. It's so reminiscent of qmail or postfix, where you have a |
30 |
>> bunch of small programs each doing one thing well, but for init |
31 |
>> systems rather than for mail, that it's just one step away from being |
32 |
>> the kind of program you show to kids to teach them how to Unix. |
33 |
> |
34 |
> It's not monolithic? Okay, then why won't logind work separately after |
35 |
> systemd-206? |
36 |
|
37 |
Here's the release notes for 205: |
38 |
|
39 |
* logind has been updated to make use of scope and slice units |
40 |
for managing user sessions. As a user logs in he will get |
41 |
his own private slice unit, to which all sessions are added |
42 |
as scope units. We also added support for automatically |
43 |
adding an instance of user@.service for the user into the |
44 |
slice. Effectively logind will no longer create cgroup |
45 |
hierarchies on its own now, it will defer entirely to PID 1 |
46 |
for this by means of scope, service and slice units. Since |
47 |
user sessions this way become entities managed by PID 1 |
48 |
the output of "systemctl" is now a lot more comprehensive. |
49 |
|
50 |
That's why. Logind used to have more scope than it used to, now it |
51 |
defers some of its functionality to other programs so that it could do |
52 |
it's "one thing well". That's the very definition of "not monolithic". |
53 |
|
54 |
Why can't you make it work separately after 205? Because 205 is |
55 |
a MAJOR VERSION BUMP on an actively developed program. |
56 |
Nobody's yet written a program that fills the functionality that logind |
57 |
depends on. Better evidence is that it could work outside of systemd |
58 |
in the first place. You don't expect public APIs to remain stable |
59 |
past major version bumps. |
60 |
|
61 |
So there, once again a long, long pompous rant of acting like a |
62 |
know-it-all about stuff you've never bothered reading. |
63 |
-- |
64 |
This email is: [ ] actionable [ ] fyi [x] social |
65 |
Response needed: [ ] yes [ ] up to you [x] no |
66 |
Time-sensitive: [ ] immediate [ ] soon [x] none |