Poettering: Why systemd?

Poettering: Why systemd?

Posted May 2, 2011 20:00 UTC (Mon) by HelloWorld (guest, #56129)
In reply to: Poettering: Why systemd? by dgm
Parent article: Poettering: Why systemd?

No, I mean that to gain something from (and thus justify) changing to systemd you need to rewrite the server's code. Otherwise, what's the point? The optimum thing would have been some automatic mechanism. I don't know if that would have been possible. Maybe I'm too demanding?

While this may be a weakness, it is not an incompatibility: stuff that used to work still works the way it used to, so it's not incompatible.

Also, it's not entirely true. Daemons supporting inetd don't need to be patched. See Poetterings systemd talk, around minute 13. A bit later on he also mentions that it would have been possible to avoid the need for patching the daemons by adding features to the kernel to support this feature, but it would have been to hard/messy, so they decided that modifying the individual daemons is easier.

---

to post comments