| 1 |
On 10/17/2013 11:27 PM, Mark David Dumlao wrote: |
| 2 |
> https://www.linux.com/news/featured-blogs/200-libby-clark/733595-all-about-the-linux-kernel-cgroups-redesign |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Not sure if I read that just right... but since nobody is doing cgroup |
| 5 |
> management besides systemd, in practice the cgroups implementation in |
| 6 |
> Linux wasn't very consistent. So since systemd is doing it, their work |
| 7 |
> is helping shape the kernel's cgroups api? |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Interesting... |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
From my perspective it looks like systemd developers are trying to push |
| 13 |
their ideas into the kernel, almost like they intend to merge systemd |
| 14 |
*with* the kernel. If systemd is the only implementation of cgroups and |
| 15 |
their developers are working on cgroup support in the kernel, it spells |
| 16 |
calamity given their history of evangelism and zealotry. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I truly wish I understood why a single userland program and its |
| 19 |
developers are being given the keys to an entire subsystem of the |
| 20 |
kernel. Their changes to udev have proven to be a headache for users, |
| 21 |
and the kernel is held to a much higher standard of stability and |
| 22 |
interoperability. In addition, the top-level developers of systemd (and |
| 23 |
GNOME, and the now-deprecated consolekit/polkit/udisks/etc) are employed |
| 24 |
by a for-profit company (Red Hat), which has a vested interest in |
| 25 |
shaping Linux as a platform. They and other corporations cannot be |
| 26 |
trusted with stuff like this... |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
I'd like to see what Linus has to say about this if/when he finds out. |
| 29 |
He's not impressed with Sievers or Poettering. Personally I'd like to |
| 30 |
see them ostracized from the community and contained to their own |
| 31 |
distro, where they belong. |
Archives