Which init system for Debian?
Which init system for Debian?
Posted Nov 10, 2013 14:11 UTC (Sun) by Jandar (subscriber, #85683)In reply to: Which init system for Debian? by HelloWorld
Parent article: Which init system for Debian?
And there are many people who don't want all of this forcible managed by a monolith at the core of the system.
The features of systemd are nice but this overarching greedy tentacle-monster is terrifying.
Posted Nov 10, 2013 17:41 UTC (Sun)
by raven667 (subscriber, #5198)
[Link]
I just can't get there man, all systemd is doing is exposing all of the existing configuration knobs for starting processes that the Linux kernel has accreted over the last decade in a consistent way. Those features and the complexity around them don't just go away if the init system doesn't support them, it just gets pushed into other tools that aren't integrated well. I don't find that terrifying, I'm relieved and glad that I can finally find and use these kernel features, and that the standard for process management has finally moved past pid files and super-hokey scripts. I guess I was spoiled all those years with daemontools.
Posted Nov 10, 2013 20:07 UTC (Sun)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link]
Once opon time the same thing was said about Linux itself. Remember the infamous Microkernels have won tirade? Systemd looks like a repeat of the same story: sure it's theoretically nice to have many small packages instead of one large package, but in practice it just makes no sense. What difference does it make if error in any one of these can give you root access? Useless frictions on the boundaries between packages? Once upon time GNU has fileutils, shellutils, and textutils. Not they have combined it all in coreutils. Systemd does the same to set of utilities dedicated to the system startup. It does not merge tham into a huge monolythic monster, instead it offers a collection of well-integrated utilities when each one does few things and does them well. It's core is large for the same reason Linux core is large: many things are just hard too pull of if you don't control PID 1. You can kinda make them work but not reliably, you can introduce interface between PID 1 and other utilities, but if there will be exactly one consumer for the interface it'll just complicate everything without giving anyone any real benefits.
Posted Nov 10, 2013 20:07 UTC (Sun)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link]
Once opon time the same thing was said about Linux itself. Remember the infamous Microkernels have won tirade? Systemd looks like a repeat of the same story: sure it's theoretically nice to have many small packages instead of one large package, but in practice it just makes no sense. What difference does it make if error in any one of these can give you root access? Useless frictions on the boundaries between packages? Once upon time GNU has fileutils, shellutils, and textutils. Not they have combined it all in coreutils. Systemd does the same to set of utilities dedicated to the system startup. It does not merge tham into a huge monolythic monster, instead it offers a collection of well-integrated utilities when each one does few things and does them well. It's core is large for the same reason Linux core is large: many things are just hard too pull of if you don't control PID 1. You can kinda make them work but not reliably, you can introduce interface between PID 1 and other utilities, but if there will be exactly one consumer for the interface it'll just complicate everything without giving anyone any real benefits.
Which init system for Debian?
Which init system for Debian?
Which init system for Debian?