Another daemon for managing control groups [LWN.net]

Another daemon for managing control groups

Posted Dec 5, 2013 8:05 UTC (Thu) by ovitters (guest, #27950)
In reply to: Another daemon for managing control groups by Baylink
Parent article: Another daemon for managing control groups

Being able to setup tcp connections from bash is probably terribly evil in your book? Let's replace bash then, because that's what bash provides (built in, no external tools required).

Anyway, a philosophy has a certain purpose. Blindly following some philosophy is not useful. Calling things unneeded names like "opaque ball" is vague. Further, "everything your Linux system does" is factually wrong.

Try being specific: why *must* *everything* be reimplemented multiple times?

Further, if you continue to twist words like you did before I'll call you out on it. Good discussion ok, but twisting of words is poor form.

to post comments

Another daemon for managing control groups

Posted Dec 5, 2013 12:28 UTC (Thu) by NAR (subscriber, #1313) [Link] (1 responses)

Try being specific: why *must* *everything* be reimplemented multiple times?

Exactly: why is an operating system (Linux) implemented when there were (and are) multiple other operating systems?

More seriously: one answer is that specifications can be "verified" by implementing them multiple times by different people and see if the result interoperates. Of course, my gut feeling is that the systemd and cgroup developers are not interested in interoperability or portability or even stable APIs because they hinder progress. Whether one agrees with this position or not, that's an other question.

Another daemon for managing control groups

Posted Dec 5, 2013 12:41 UTC (Thu) by ovitters (guest, #27950) [Link]

You're not being specific, you're just answering one question. Where is the specification for every software available on Debian? Where are the multiple implementations for every software?

I was asking why *everything must* be implemented multiple times.

Also your answer implies that systemd has a specification which it is being written against. I'm not aware of such specification. Systemd did create various specifications.

Suggest thinking about my question a little bit more.

Another daemon for managing control groups

Posted Dec 6, 2013 2:38 UTC (Fri) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75) [Link]

Try being specific: why *must* *everything* be reimplemented multiple times?

I'm not sure if everything must be reimplemented multiple times, but everything should be capable of being reimplemented multiple times so that components can be torn out and replaced with better ones. That has been a significant way that Unix/Linux has made progress. Of course it's helpful to have standardized interfaces so that new implementations can be drop-in compatible with old ones. It may even be helpful to have multiple implementations of critical infrastructure so that it can be replaced quickly if it's ever discovered to have critical flaws.