| |||||||||||||
Systemd and ConsoleKitSystemd and ConsoleKitPosted May 4, 2011 17:01 UTC (Wed) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)In reply to: Systemd and ConsoleKit by michaeljt Parent article: Systemd and ConsoleKit
I can't see that ConsoleKit will magically stop working on systems not using systemd if systemd has features that make it redundant. Ubuntu for example has a lot invested in Upstart and probably won't be switching any time soon. Those features will continue to be developed as long as it still makes sense to do so.
No one is forcing distros to switch to systemd though, it is being adopted widely and quickly on its merits. It seems to be replacing not only sysvinit but tens of thousands of lines of shell scripting as well as tools like daemontools/runit, monit, maybe even ucspi-tcp and now ConsoleKit with a smaller, simpler and more robust system which seems like a very good thing.
I'm excited about it anyway :-)
(Log in to post comments)
Systemd and ConsoleKit Posted May 4, 2011 17:13 UTC (Wed) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183) [Link]
> I can't see that ConsoleKit will magically stop working on systems not using systemd if systemd has features that make it redundant. Ubuntu for example has a lot invested in Upstart and probably won't be switching any time soon. Those features will continue to be developed as long as it still makes sense to do so.
So in other words, people who don't want to adopt systemd will likely take over collective maintenance of ConsoleKit. Sounds reasonable if the current maintainers go along with that in some way.
> No one is forcing distros to switch to systemd though, it is being adopted widely and quickly on its merits.
As I said, I would be more than happy to see that happen.
Systemd and ConsoleKit Posted May 4, 2011 18:11 UTC (Wed) by jubal (subscriber, #67202) [Link] I'm excited about it anyway :-)I'm a bit more cautious here. Perhaps because of a somewhat interesting systemd developers' attitude [I'm not particularly fond of the «we've seen the truth, so it's our way or highway» methodology of engaging the end-users (the end-users being in this case daemon developers and packagers)].
Systemd and ConsoleKit Posted May 4, 2011 21:42 UTC (Wed) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]
Although to be fair in this case, they already included the needed functionality to handle this use case even though the stated preference was for the daemon to handle this kind of checking and init by itself.
Heck, I've run DJB software for the last decade, developers who have "seen the truth" don't scare me :-)
Systemd and ConsoleKit Posted May 5, 2011 0:35 UTC (Thu) by mezcalero (subscriber, #45103) [Link]
Really, you don't want to allow us a belief how service should best be written?
I mean seriously, if we wouldn't have an opinion on that, i.e. a vision how things should be done in an ideal world, then we'd be useless as software designers.
Systemd and ConsoleKit Posted May 5, 2011 21:11 UTC (Thu) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]
AOL :-)
It's the self-opiniated developer, convinced that he's right, that either races down a dead end to oblivion, or drags everyone after him kicking and screaming that they "don't want to be forced to do the right thing"!
Look at me - much as I find relational theory very useful, I think relational *technology* is a dead end - a cancerous waste of resources that *cannot* work - because it ignores reality.
Am I going to drag everyone down the road I want? I'm not a Poettering, I don't think I'm going to pull it off. But it's people like him, people like me, who make others re-evaluate. And I must admit, I like Poettering's approach - "it'll only work properly if it's done right". Why *shouldn't* he take broken stuff, and break it even more? If the end result is things actually work properly, then well done!
Cheers,
|
|||||||||||||