| 1 |
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Daniel Campbell <lists@××××××××.us> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 02/15/2014 02:32 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Mick <michaelkintzios@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
>>> On Saturday 15 Feb 2014 17:32:44 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: |
| 5 |
>>>> On Feb 15, 2014 11:02 AM, "Tanstaafl" <tanstaafl@×××××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 6 |
>>>>> On 2014-02-15 10:16 AM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@×××××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 7 |
>>>>>> Hi all, |
| 8 |
>>>>>> |
| 9 |
>>>>>> Not to revive a flame-fest against systemd, but... |
| 10 |
>>>>>> |
| 11 |
>>>>>> I'm sure some or most of you have already heard about this, but I found |
| 12 |
>>>>>> a really decent thread discussing this whole systemd thing. It is only |
| 13 |
>>>>>> really comparing systemd and upstart, as that was the debate going on in |
| 14 |
>>>>>> the debian TC, but it is a great read, and has actually made me rethink |
| 15 |
>>>>>> my blind objections to systemd a bit. |
| 16 |
>>>>> |
| 17 |
>>>>> One of which was logging: |
| 18 |
>>>>> |
| 19 |
>>>>> "20. Myth: systemd makes it impossible to run syslog. |
| 20 |
>>>>> |
| 21 |
>>>>> Not true, we carefully made sure when we introduced the journal that all |
| 22 |
>>>> |
| 23 |
>>>> data is also passed on to any syslog daemon running. In fact, if something |
| 24 |
>>>> changed, then only that syslog gets more complete data now than it got |
| 25 |
>>>> before, since we now cover early boot stuff as well as STDOUT/STDERR of any |
| 26 |
>>>> system service." |
| 27 |
>>>> |
| 28 |
>>>>> From: http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html |
| 29 |
>>>> |
| 30 |
>>>> Also, for those of you who don't follow Linux-related news, Ubuntu will |
| 31 |
>>>> also change to systemd in the future: |
| 32 |
>>>> |
| 33 |
>>>> http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1316 |
| 34 |
>>>> |
| 35 |
>>>> And I *heard* that Slackware was also discussing the possibility, but since |
| 36 |
>>>> I don't follow Slackware at all, I don't know for sure. |
| 37 |
>>>> |
| 38 |
>>>> Anyway, distros not using systemd, and that they are not really small |
| 39 |
>>>> and/or niche, seem to be disappearing. The discussion that Tanstaafl posted |
| 40 |
>>>> is interesting since the arguments used by the four TC members are really |
| 41 |
>>>> focused on the technical merits of the proposed init systems. |
| 42 |
>>> |
| 43 |
>>> There was a thread sometime last year mentioning a slimmer/slicker and obeying |
| 44 |
>>> to the *nix design principles initialisation system, but can't find it at the |
| 45 |
>>> moment. Isn't that at all in the running? |
| 46 |
>> |
| 47 |
>> For Slackware, I have no idea. For Debian, no the only options were[1]: |
| 48 |
>> |
| 49 |
>> 1. sysvinit (status quo) |
| 50 |
>> 2. systemd |
| 51 |
>> 3. upstart |
| 52 |
>> 4. openrc (experimental) |
| 53 |
>> 5. One system on Linux, something else on non-linux |
| 54 |
>> 6. multiple |
| 55 |
>> |
| 56 |
>> It should also be noted that no one in the TC voted OpenRC above |
| 57 |
>> systemd AND upstart, and that while a couple voted systemd below |
| 58 |
>> everything else, it can be argued that it was a tactical vote. |
| 59 |
>> |
| 60 |
>> Regards. |
| 61 |
>> |
| 62 |
>> [1] https://wiki.debian.org/Debate/initsystem/ |
| 63 |
>> |
| 64 |
> |
| 65 |
> Why didn't they consider runit? It has parallel execution of daemons and |
| 66 |
> is backwards compatible with sysv. It has a few other mini-features as |
| 67 |
> well, iirc. I used for a little while before Arch pushed systemd on |
| 68 |
> their community and it was interesting. |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
Because nobody proposed it? And almost no one is using it? Which |
| 71 |
means; no high availability upstream, no momentum, and a small |
| 72 |
community, which translates in few real-live systems using it in |
| 73 |
production, and few testers and possible contributors... |
| 74 |
|
| 75 |
Besides, systemd and upstart are backwars compatible with sysv, and, |
| 76 |
well, nobody does parallel execution of daemons better than systemd, |
| 77 |
AFAICT. So, what advantages would runit bring to the table? Even |
| 78 |
OpenRC, now that it has (apparently) proper parallel execution |
| 79 |
support, would be a better choice. |
| 80 |
|
| 81 |
But you can read the discussion directly in [1], and see the different |
| 82 |
proposals in [2]. The discussion got nasty at some points, but I |
| 83 |
believe in general it was a very civil and intelligent debate. And the |
| 84 |
social/political "problems" you mentioned in your last mail were |
| 85 |
addressed as well. "Problems" in quotes because there are many of us |
| 86 |
who don't think they are problems at all, if they even exist. |
| 87 |
|
| 88 |
Regards. |
| 89 |
|
| 90 |
[1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/02/threads.html |
| 91 |
[2] https://wiki.debian.org/Debate/initsystem/ |
| 92 |
-- |
| 93 |
Canek Peláez Valdés |
| 94 |
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación |
| 95 |
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México |
Archives