Recent Features
| |||||||||||||
systemd & the tightly couple core band vs a world of many initssystemd & the tightly couple core band vs a world of many initsPosted Apr 24, 2012 22:40 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)In reply to: systemd & the tightly couple core band vs a world of many inits by HelloWorld Parent article: Shuttleworth: Quality has a new name
> sh is an *extremely* baroque and quirky language, and you have to learn a bazillion tools as well in order to write anything useful.
yes, but it's one that sysadmins are very familiar with. They need it and use it for all sort of other things so your objection really doesn't matter.
systems that don't have sysadmins will probably not change the configuration anyway, so whatever the distro provides is almost always good enough for them.
(Log in to post comments)
systemd & the tightly couple core band vs a world of many inits Posted Apr 24, 2012 22:51 UTC (Tue) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129) [Link]
> yes, but it's one that sysadmins are very familiar with. They need it and use it for all sort of other things so your objection really doesn't matter.
Oh, it very much does. Writing sh scripts is much harder than writing simple ini-style configuration files even if you know sh. And actually, many admins know it barely enough to somehow get by. When did you last meet a sysadmin who knows the difference between cat << EOF and cat << "EOF"?
systemd & the tightly couple core band vs a world of many inits Posted Apr 25, 2012 12:36 UTC (Wed) by sciurus (subscriber, #58832) [Link]
Variable interpolation. Don't underestimate the sysadmin's ability to memorize arcana. :-)
systemd & the tightly couple core band vs a world of many inits Posted Apr 26, 2012 19:22 UTC (Thu) by cdmiller (subscriber, #2813) [Link]
Hmm, that would be every sysadmin in our shop, including the primary Windows server admin.
systemd & the tightly couple core band vs a world of many inits Posted Apr 24, 2012 23:12 UTC (Tue) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]
As a sysadmin maintaining a big money-sucking cluster on Amazon EC2, I wish to go back in time and exterminate EVERYONE who thinks that shell scripts are a good idea before they are born.
systemd & the tightly couple core band vs a world of many inits Posted Apr 24, 2012 23:26 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
you are entitled to do whatever you want on your systems.
But why do you think you have the right to dictate what other people do on their systems?
systemd & the tightly couple core band vs a world of many inits Posted Apr 25, 2012 5:28 UTC (Wed) by cmccabe (guest, #60281) [Link]
He's a sysadmin. Of course he wants to dictate what you do on the system :)
(joke)
But in all seriousness, the whole "SysV init is simpler" thing just ain't true. And you can still write SysV init scripts under either Upstart or Systemd, if you feel like you must.
systemd & the tightly couple core band vs a world of many inits Posted Apr 25, 2012 11:04 UTC (Wed) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link]
Well, it is, and it isn't at the same time.
Init, the process, is simple. It's code is simple, because it's job is simple. And that's because the grunt work is left for the shell scripts that init runs. Init itself doesn't do much.
If you consider init, plus the directory layout conventions, plus the script conventions, plus the additional tools, then maybe init is not so much simpler than Systemd or Upstart. But all that is optional, mind you. Remember how Arjan van de Ven got his system booting to desktop in just five seconds. They did so with plain old init (and plenty of ingenuity).
systemd & the tightly couple core band vs a world of many inits Posted Apr 25, 2012 14:41 UTC (Wed) by mezcalero (subscriber, #45103) [Link]
The same Arjan is now working with the systemd folks and pushed systemd into multiple intel projects, simply because it offers the best performance.
systemd & the tightly couple core band vs a world of many inits Posted Apr 25, 2012 19:16 UTC (Wed) by oldtomas (guest, #72579) [Link]
Hm. If one trusts this source [1], Debian SysV is the most concise, by a long shot.
[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenRC#Size_and_complexity>
systemd & the tightly couple core band vs a world of many inits Posted Apr 26, 2012 22:49 UTC (Thu) by s0f4r (subscriber, #52284) [Link]
The same Arjan who game the talk at Linux Plumbers together with me. And, our newest work will reduce boot time even further, while doing more, be more robust, and scale across many more services and devices in systems.
Arjan and me are supporting systemd in many ways, with code, feedback, prototypes and exploration of unwritten mechanisms.
For example, at the Tizen Conference in May, I will be presenting a prototype `systemd --user` initialized desktop that entirely removes XDG autostart in favor of treating everything that starts as `a service`, even for user-started programs (such as, Xorg, your window manager, the session bus).
sysvinit didn't scale - we knew that already in 2009, which is exactly why we had been talking with Lennert and folks for a loooong time to come up with something better.
systemd & the tightly couple core band vs a world of many inits Posted Apr 25, 2012 15:40 UTC (Wed) by jedidiah (guest, #20319) [Link]
The simpler part of init scripts is not the scripts themselves but how they interact with each other. As far as the script themselves being unmaintainable spaghetti, you can do that with any language. I am sure as Upstart gains more traction more cruft and craziness will build up.
Init and bash are things that have had decades to show it's warts.
You just haven't given Upstart a chance yet. '-)
systemd & the tightly couple core band vs a world of many inits Posted Apr 25, 2012 7:56 UTC (Wed) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129) [Link]
+1
|
|||||||||||||