Scheidler: Project Lumberjack to improve Linux logging
Posted Mar 4, 2012 9:10 UTC (Sun) by khim
In reply to: Scheidler: Project Lumberjack to improve Linux logging
Parent article: Scheidler: Project Lumberjack to improve Linux logging
It seems to me that all the »hackability« is actually there – it's just not required in many cases because the infrastructure that systemd already provides is adequate.
The problem here, of course, is the fact that most services will not come with SysV init scripts which can be “slightly altered”. It's the same story as with “PHP” vs “___ language”. The ability to easily change things in production is both really nice (and this is what “sysadmins” clamor for) and completely horrifying at the same time.
I welcome systemd with both hands exactly because I have worked as sysadmin and I know “both sides” of the equation. It's just not worth it. If you really need to hack something - you can do that with systemd. But this will be highly visible and traceable (you'll get new large file in mostly-empty directory, not two lines added to large pile of scripts god knows where).
As far as »transparency« is concerned, systemd is also a big step forward since one does not need to analyse the init script for every single service separately to find out exactly how that service is started; looking at the (much shorter and simpler) systemd service file will suffice.
I think “transparency” here means something like “the ability to insert "set -x" in your script to see what really goes on here”. Yes, systemd is more opaque in his work, which is kind of unfortunate, but this [small] problem is more then compensated by it's advantages: I'm saying this, again, as former sysadmin - the fact that Linux had no way to reliably kill service before systemd was created is just crazy.
to post comments)