1 |
On 2012-12-27 02:14, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> I really think that's the crux of the matter Pandou: udev/systemd |
4 |
> serves to the wants of the many. The eudev fork serves to the wants of |
5 |
|
6 |
systemd+udev serves the "large mass" (users of mainly Fedora and other |
7 |
distros using systemd) that doesn't care/know computers. |
8 |
|
9 |
> a very few which really don't want an initramfs, when it has a lot of |
10 |
> technical advantages. It has some problems, of course, but we can |
11 |
> solve those, and solve the problem *in the general case*. Which is the |
12 |
> one that it's important ant interesting. |
13 |
|
14 |
It's unimportant and uninteresting on the terms that |
15 |
Poettering/Sievers/Greg KH put forward, for us that wants control and |
16 |
does not want an all singing and dancing system (incl. "kitchen sink"). |
17 |
In my opinion the init system should be completely independent of the |
18 |
kernel with a well defined, generic, interface so that the user can |
19 |
choose and pick whatever pieces he/she wishes to run his system. Think |
20 |
"Lego" (as in small, well defined pieces that fit together in any way |
21 |
the user sees fit)... |
22 |
|
23 |
> my wishing luck to the eudev fork (which, BTW, Greg also did). The few |
24 |
|
25 |
The way I read Greg's "good luck" was that it had quite a bit of a |
26 |
sarcastic tone... Was there really any need for him to say anything at |
27 |
all? I've previously had a lot of respect for Greg but this made me |
28 |
think quite a lot less of him... |
29 |
|
30 |
> of us who *dare* to praise udev/systemd get an incredible amount of |
31 |
> crap for it. We are nothing but fanbois or, in your words, "udev has |
32 |
> become like the cosmos: everything there is, and ever shall be." |
33 |
> Really? I didn't knew that. |
34 |
|
35 |
You really sound like a fanboy... And I don't mean that in a derogatory |
36 |
way; it's just how I see your writing... |
37 |
|
38 |
> Maybe we are doing it wrong. But as far as i can see, we are only |
39 |
> expressing our opinion on technical grounds. We are not calling names |
40 |
|
41 |
Your opinions (technical or not) doesn't matter to me since (it seems) |
42 |
you have a very different goal than me with your system. I want you to |
43 |
enjoy whatever system you use but you shouldn't try to force that same |
44 |
system on to me. In that regard I see the eudev fork as a saviour. |
45 |
|
46 |
These are the technical grounds that I've seen you state: |
47 |
|
48 |
* fast boot time |
49 |
Irrelevant, BIOS/UEFI/card firmware takes longer time than booting to |
50 |
XDM for me. The few seconds that it takes to boot from grub to login is |
51 |
of no matter (to me). |
52 |
|
53 |
* parallel service startup |
54 |
Nice to have but still irrelevant, see above. Sequential is also |
55 |
preferred from a trouble shooting perspective. Furthermore I like having |
56 |
the ability to stop a particular daemon if there something that needs |
57 |
fixing (pushing "I" when booting). |
58 |
|
59 |
* "simple service unit files" |
60 |
Simplicity is fine but to accomplish the same in your simple "service" |
61 |
file as in the example you brought forward (sshd) you need to hide a lot |
62 |
of stuff elsewhere. Not for me thanks, I'm a control freak. |
63 |
|
64 |
* good documentation |
65 |
I haven't read it so I won't touch this. Not a technical point though, |
66 |
more of an opinion. Although I agree that good documentation is very |
67 |
nice to have. |
68 |
|
69 |
* "Really good in-site customization" |
70 |
If I choose to upgrade a daemon, I should be interested in what changes, |
71 |
if any, that brings in configuration in order to not have any surprises |
72 |
later. If you think that's a good thing, that really sounds like you |
73 |
would be doing the OpenRC equivalent of: |
74 |
'etc-update --automode -5' |
75 |
|
76 |
* control groups |
77 |
As I understand it, this depends on someone writing config files for the |
78 |
individual daemons. Noone is stopping Gentoo devs or anyone else from |
79 |
writing such. And I would, again, prefer to go through a good manual or |
80 |
a "howto" and do it myself so that I can understand the consequences, if |
81 |
I would want it. |
82 |
|
83 |
* unification |
84 |
I've tried quite a few distros over the years (starting with Redhat in |
85 |
the late 90'ies) and Gentoos OpenRC is by far the most sane system I've |
86 |
come across. Never going back to Redhat hell thank you! Standardizing |
87 |
the interfaces is fine but it's not ok to force a whole "kitchen and |
88 |
sink" solution in order to "satisfy" as many as possible. This is not |
89 |
the Gentoo way, as I understand it. Gentoo is all about choice. |
90 |
|
91 |
* "you tell the daemon *what* to do, not *how* to do it" |
92 |
It's good if you don't want to learn about what things you install and |
93 |
understand what the consequences are of different choices, in the config |
94 |
files. I run very few daemons on my desktop machine so it's not so time |
95 |
consuming to read up on/fix things etc. If I ever were to run a full |
96 |
blown server (esp. connected to the "net") with lots of daemons I would |
97 |
be very hesitant to use any pre-configurations, seems suicidal to me. |
98 |
The only usage I see here of "declarative" scripts are when you don't |
99 |
care about what the machine is doing. |
100 |
|
101 |
Best regards |
102 |
|
103 |
Peter K |