Debian looks at OpenRC
Debian looks at OpenRC
Posted Aug 30, 2012 18:04 UTC (Thu) by gvy (guest, #11981)In reply to: Debian looks at OpenRC by HelloWorld
Parent article: Debian looks at OpenRC
> systems do apply a well-integrated approach.
In marketing (and sometimes in plain deception), that is.
> cgroups are needed, but why would you disable them?
e.g. I see no reason for them (and the system in question isn't the one where stray processes are welcome in the first place).
> There's also nothing wrong with systemd's use of D-Bus.
...but http://secunia.com/advisories/search/?search=dbus
> And besides, systemd is by no means the only program that uses cgroups.
Do you know the difference between PID 1 and a bunch of other processes, Mr. Downright Downplayer?
> thus making systemd portable would be a waste of time.
What about accepting patches?
>> modularity.
> its configure script...
Next time you buy bread hope they won't suggest you a grocery shop instead; but if they accidentally do, please make a mental note that it isn't you asked for.
What is irritating in the crowd touting systemd is that viral "who would need this or that?". You never know in advance. Just ask Linus if you haven't read the story already: did he anticipate an Alpha port, or Beowulf clusters, or even thousands of users at the outset? And yet this egocentric upstream -- which is churning out a lot of code indeed -- damaged their heads enough so as to think that they can decide for the rest of us.
They can't.
Heck, I've suggested this article in the distro's devel mailing list just in case OpenRC might get considered and found useful -- we thoroughly dislike an idea of running systemd at servers.
Posted Aug 30, 2012 18:24 UTC (Thu)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link]
For example, BIND had a bug where it hangs indefinitely on exit if DNSSEC is used. Doubly nice on a remote server, especially if init kills sshd first. And yes, that caused me a real-life 4am trip to our datacenter to press the "reset" switch.
>> There's also nothing wrong with systemd's use of D-Bus.
>> thus making systemd portable would be a waste of time.
>Heck, I've suggested this article in the distro's devel mailing list just in case OpenRC might get considered and found useful -- we thoroughly dislike an idea of running systemd at servers.
Posted Aug 31, 2012 20:16 UTC (Fri)
by HelloWorld (guest, #56129)
[Link]
OTOH, there is a reason for enabling cgroups they're needed to reliably terminate a service, including all its children. Perhaps you don't need that, but many others (like Cyberax) like that ability.
> ...but http://secunia.com/advisories/search/?search=dbus
> Do you know the difference between PID 1 and a bunch of other processes, Mr. Downright Downplayer?
> What about accepting patches?
> What is irritating in the crowd touting systemd is that viral "who would need this or that?".
> we thoroughly dislike an idea of running systemd at servers.
Debian looks at OpenRC
So you prefer to blindly trust all daemon developers that they correctly process all the shutdown requests and won't hang your box during restart?
>...but http://secunia.com/advisories/search/?search=dbus
Systemd uses dbus for communication between trusted processes as a simple form of RPC. It can run totally fine without system-level bus.
>What about accepting patches?
Has anyone actually bothered to create a compat patch for systemd?
Why? Because of various phobias?
Debian looks at OpenRC
So what? They won't interfere with your work if you don't need them, the overhead is negligible, so please, just name *one* sensible reason for disabling cgroups. Btw, file permissions are also totally useless on my wireless router, so why doesn't anybody complain because you can't disable those? Because they don't harm anything either.
Yeah. So how many of those redundant are reports because dozens of different distros ship the same fix for the same problem? How many of them affect d-bus-related stuff that isn't required for systemd (dbus-daemon, dbus-qt, dbus-glib etc.)? How many are made irrelevant by the fact that you need root permissions to even connect to systemd's sockets? Can you even name *one* real problem, that was caused by systemd's use of dbus, security or otherwise?
rleigh's original argument was that systemd shouldn't make use of cgroups because then it's hard to remove/modify them if they turn out to be a bad idea. In that context, whether the PID is 1 or something else doesn't make any difference whatsoever.
What for? As I said, other operating systems already have their own init systems and it's unlikely they'll switch to systemd (the BSDs aren't exactly famous for loving the LGPL). OTOH, making systemd portable will likely compromise its maintainability. It's all pain and no gain.
systemd can do everything sysvinit does and more. Nobody stops you from launching a shell script from a systemd unit if that is really what it takes, but systemd units cover the vast majority of cases just fine and they're easier to write and not as ridiculously inefficient as shell scripts.
And yet you completely failed to name any sensible reason for that conviction.