1 |
On Friday, September 16, 2011 10:53:47 AM Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: |
2 |
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 5:08 AM, Joost Roeleveld <joost@××××××××.org> wrote: |
3 |
> > On Thursday, September 15, 2011 05:05:00 PM Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: |
4 |
> >> "Last time I checked, neither GNOME nor Emacs demanded that Gentoo |
5 |
> >> developers or users had to write a fork/replacement for a core |
6 |
> >> component of the system. GNOME and Emacs just need ebuilds and |
7 |
> >> adapting their configuration to Gentoo-isms. Testing and bug |
8 |
> >> reporting, as usual. The only code needed is some small patches for |
9 |
> >> both and around 200 lines of emacslisp for site-gentoo.el." |
10 |
> > |
11 |
> > Funny that you mention this. There might be something similar brewing |
12 |
> > for |
13 |
> > users of Gnome where quite a few low-level parts will end up being |
14 |
> > mandatory for Gnome: |
15 |
> > |
16 |
> > "...but I'm increasingly seeing talk on the |
17 |
> > gnome side of the "Gnome OS", to include pulse-audio, systemd, |
18 |
> > policykit, |
19 |
> > udev/u* (thus forcing lvm as well, at least lvm installation tho nothing |
20 |
> > forces one to use it... yet, since lvm is required for udisks), etc." |
21 |
> |
22 |
> I'm pretty sure the last part is false. I certainly have udisk |
23 |
> installet (it's pulled by gnome-disk-utility), but I don't use LVM. So |
24 |
> there. |
25 |
|
26 |
I don't use Gnome and haven't looked into all this. Udev also doesn't appear |
27 |
to have a LVM-useflag. But as I do use LVM, I can't actually check. |
28 |
Do you have "sys-fs/lvm2" on your system? |
29 |
|
30 |
The ebuild does list it as "RDEPEND". |
31 |
|
32 |
> > It's a reply in the gentoo-dev thread I started. |
33 |
> > |
34 |
> > Requiring pulse-audio and policykit, I can understand. But requiring a |
35 |
> > specific init-system for the desktop seems a bit overkill. |
36 |
> |
37 |
> I don't think that will happen, although certainly is what Lennart |
38 |
> (and probably Kay) wants. What I think will happen is that, if |
39 |
> available, GNOME will use systemd. FreeBSD does not have udev, and |
40 |
> GNOME works there (with diminished functionality). |
41 |
> |
42 |
> That's the future, I believe: you will be able to use GNOME without |
43 |
> systemd, but it will be like more awesomer with systemd. |
44 |
|
45 |
I still think Gnome (or any other desktop environment) should not care about |
46 |
which init-system is being used. |
47 |
|
48 |
> > I'm not a gnome user and am happy with my KDE-desktop. But the same post |
49 |
> > also mentions KDE seems to be headed in a similar direction. Just |
50 |
> > slower. |
51 |
> Because it makes sense for the full-fledge desktop. Notice that |
52 |
> Gustavo Barbieri (who works a lot on e17) is a heavy promoter of |
53 |
> systemd. Maybe even makes sense for Xfce, but that I don't know. |
54 |
> |
55 |
> At the end of the day, systemd manages how to start and stop |
56 |
> processes. Which is basically the task of gnome-session-manager (and |
57 |
> whatever is the equivalent in KDE). |
58 |
|
59 |
systemd, like any init-system, should start services. |
60 |
KDE has some "kde-services" like akonadi, nepomuk,... that get controlled by |
61 |
the kde-system internally. I would NOT want to see these controlled by |
62 |
systemd. |
63 |
These are running for the user that is logged in. Having these running for all |
64 |
users at once leads to the multi-user-kludge that MS Windows tries to have and |
65 |
for which Citrix was invented ontop of MS Windows.... |
66 |
|
67 |
We already have a decent multi-user environment, why would we want to kill |
68 |
that? If I wanted a single-user system, I'd be running MS Windows. |
69 |
|
70 |
> > Mind you, I do think systemd is nice and usefull on a desktop machine, |
71 |
> > but I don't see much need for this on a server where the sysadmins |
72 |
> > generally prefer to have a much more detailed control of what is |
73 |
> > happening. |
74 |
> |
75 |
> I think systemd gives you that in servers. With OpenRC and Apache with |
76 |
> user CGI scripts, ¿do you know how to list the httpd daemon spawned |
77 |
> processes, and only those? Remember that a CGI script can double fork. |
78 |
> |
79 |
> With systemd is a matter of: |
80 |
> |
81 |
> systemctl status apache-httpd.service |
82 |
|
83 |
Did you look at the output of pstree? |
84 |
Try "pstree -pu" and you see all the PIDs and whenever there is a "user- |
85 |
switch", it also lists the new user. |
86 |
|
87 |
> And you can kill every process related to a daemon, no matter how many |
88 |
> forks its children process make. That alone makes systemd more usefull |
89 |
> for servers thatn SysV+OpenRC, I think. |
90 |
|
91 |
Systemd handles this through process-groups. This can be done in different |
92 |
ways. |
93 |
|
94 |
> > Then again, I don't feel Gnome or KDE have any reason to be installed on |
95 |
> > a server, but that's just how I see it. |
96 |
> |
97 |
> Dear evolution, of course not. Why would you install GNOME or KDE in a |
98 |
> server? My two servers run with systemd, and not a single GUI library |
99 |
> is installed in them. |
100 |
|
101 |
I consider dbus to be part of the GUI as I don't see a reason for apache, |
102 |
syslog, nfs, samba,.... to be using dbus to communicate with each other. |
103 |
|
104 |
There are already well-tested and working mechanisms for communication where |
105 |
needed. |
106 |
|
107 |
-- |
108 |
Joost |