| 1 |
On Sunday 16 Feb 2014 19:00:43 Yuri K. Shatroff wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 16.02.2014 20:50, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: |
| 3 |
> [ ... ] |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> > It's because they are cons only if you agree with systemd's view of the |
| 6 |
> > world. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > I do. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Isn't there too many "if you believe" and "if you agree"? A church of |
| 11 |
> systemd? ;) |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> I wonder why all systemd's fancy stuff hasn't yet been integrated into |
| 14 |
> any existing init system, because of theoretical impossibility or just |
| 15 |
> practical uselessness? |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Actually why not do the daemon management, logging, cron etc in the |
| 18 |
> Linux kernel itself? It's obvious, and we even have a perfect example of |
| 19 |
> kernel-integrated graphics around -- `guess the OS name`. It also has |
| 20 |
> much in common with systemd; "Believe us it's the best OS", "Believe us |
| 21 |
> it provides loads of features", "Agree with having binary logs" etc. |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> A competent approach for choosing software for a task is answering the |
| 24 |
> questions: |
| 25 |
> 1. Is the software standards-compliant? |
| 26 |
> 2. Does the software have an alternative compatible implementation? |
| 27 |
> 3. Is the software developed to achieve a certain, concrete goal? |
| 28 |
> 4. Does the software achieve the goal? |
| 29 |
> 5. Does the software achieve the goal "gracefully"? |
| 30 |
> 6. Does the software have a clear perspective and view what it will be |
| 31 |
> like? 7. Is the software developed and maintained by a reliable company or |
| 32 |
> group? |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> AFAICT, with systemd there's by far one "yes". The other answers are |
| 35 |
> dubious if just plain "no". |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> I'd personally share Alan McKinnon's POV: there's no real reason to |
| 38 |
> switch to systemd since the present init systems serve pretty well and |
| 39 |
> the benefit, if any, isn't worth the adaptation threshold. |
| 40 |
> |
| 41 |
> But why then is Linux drifting to systemd? The answer is simple: money. |
| 42 |
> Time is money. You have to support two init systems -> twice the time, |
| 43 |
> twice the money. Sooner or later, a sum of money will outweigh the |
| 44 |
> users' opinion. To be a realist, one has to admit that in near future |
| 45 |
> 90% of new distro versions will be systemd-based. Unless some green soxx |
| 46 |
> emerge and take over Red Hat... |
| 47 |
|
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
You may have lost it in the link that Volker posted (thanks Volker), but this |
| 50 |
comment from HaakonKL probably sums it up: |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
"... I will give Upstart this though: Should something better come along, you |
| 53 |
could replace upstart. I guess this holds true for OpenRC as well. |
| 54 |
|
| 55 |
You can't say that about systemd." |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
Can you surgically remove systemd in the future without reverse engineering |
| 58 |
half of what the LSB would look at the time, or will its developers ensure |
| 59 |
that this is a one time choice only? |
| 60 |
-- |
| 61 |
Regards, |
| 62 |
Mick |
Archives