| |||||||||||||
Is systemd unix?Is systemd unix?Posted Apr 26, 2012 14:52 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333)In reply to: Is systemd unix? by ebiederm Parent article: The return of the Unix wars?
> Will RHEL7 based on systemd and gnome3.x and Wayland be unix? Will it run my old unix applications? We have seen enough disdain for backwards compatibility that I am in serious doubt.
In what way does Wayland or SystemD break legacy applications?
I see a lot of people throwing around terms like 'Unix way' and things like that, but I don't see it. I don't see it at all. Same thing people talk about the portability of using init scripts and such. I don't see that at all either.
The scripts and commands that I use to managing the start up of processes is different from Redhat to Debian. They are also different from what FreeBSD and OpenBSD use and they are different then what I see in Solaris. All of it it is very different.
SystemD still supports legacy scripts just as well as anything else ever did. Wayland will happily run all your X applications. etc etc.
I mean when Perl came out did people complain that it wasn't 'Unix'. That it wasn't 'do one thing and do it well' and that it was a conglomeration of different approaches in a generic multipurpose language and abandoned much of the pipe-passing and shell utilities and all that?
(Log in to post comments)
Is systemd unix? Posted Apr 26, 2012 18:03 UTC (Thu) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link]
"I see a lot of people throwing around terms like 'Unix way' and things like that, but I don't see it. I don't see it at all."
The complaint is that systemd doesn't just take over for the old init system. It's also taking over for the old inetd, udev, syslog, and probably others. The "Unix" way is not to try to do too much in one subsystem or process, so this consolidation makes people nervous.
"The scripts and commands that I use to managing the start up of processes is different from Redhat to Debian. They are also different from what FreeBSD and OpenBSD use and they are different then what I see in Solaris. All of it it is very different."
I've run all of those systems, plus Ubuntu and some others (both Linux and commercial Unix) better forgotten, in the last 15+ years, and all but the BSDs have let me do "/etc/init.d/foo start" and "/etc/init.d/foo stop" to control daemons. (Since the advent of upstart, Ubuntu complains about it, but still does it.) And all but the BSDs have allowed basically the same procedure for making a daemon start on bootup (which minor variations in directory structure and runlevel definitions). All of it is very similar.
"I mean when Perl came out did people complain that it wasn't 'Unix'."
Actually people did, a bit. Ever heard the term "Swiss army chainsaw"? But they still used it. Eventually Perl embraced modularity, however, as have its many successors.
From my perspective, it seems like systemd is being pushed before it's widely considered ready to take over such fundamental tasks. Wayland is not yet being pushed, and seems to be trying to address the concerns first. Of course, Wayland has an advantage of trying to replace something that was already trying to do too much, and possibly even reducing the scope slightly.
Is systemd unix? Posted Apr 26, 2012 18:25 UTC (Thu) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]
This is made worse by the fact that the replcements don't actually do everything that was possible (and done in practice) before, they only implement that parts that the new authors consider 'important'
sometimes they are 'considerate' enough to allow us to continue to run the old software, but only as a second class citizen doing whatever the new software allows it to do.
Is systemd unix? Posted Apr 26, 2012 18:45 UTC (Thu) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
wow... this conversation has gone too abstract to be useful even as constructive criticism. I'm not even sure what particular pieces of software or functionality you are complaining about.
Oh and...get off my lawn.
-jef
|
|||||||||||||