The Grumpy Editor's guide to surviving the systemd debate [LWN.net]

The Grumpy Editor's guide to surviving the systemd debate

Posted Nov 14, 2014 21:54 UTC (Fri) by mgb (guest, #3226)
In reply to: The Grumpy Editor's guide to surviving the systemd debate by anselm
Parent article: The Grumpy Editor's guide to surviving the systemd debate

If RedHat and FreeDesktop had wanted to support innovation they would have employed a modern component architecture rather than a throwback to the 1970's.

Given the advances in software engineering in the last forty years, one would have to try really hard to design a plumbing layer as harmful as systemd.

to post comments

The Grumpy Editor's guide to surviving the systemd debate

Posted Nov 14, 2014 23:12 UTC (Fri) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link] (6 responses)

> If RedHat and FreeDesktop had wanted to support innovation they would have employed a modern component architecture rather than a throwback to the 1970's.

Please enlighten us with an example of "a modern component architecture".

Heck, while you're at it, I'd love to see an example of an actual "component architecture" *designed in the 70s*.

The Grumpy Editor's guide to surviving the systemd debate

Posted Nov 14, 2014 23:26 UTC (Fri) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (5 responses)

At the risk of feeding a troll

a modern component architecture would be web services or RESTful interfaces where you define the API but the implementations are independent of each other.

a "throwback to the 70's" would be window's all-in-one where you have lots of separate components, but they all have to be exactly the same version and there are no alternatives to any of the components.

Now, I think the 70's is probably a bit early, but the 80's or early 90's seems very appropriate.

As a somewhat relevant side note, there's a reason that the respected standards bodies require multiple independent implementations of something before they consider it for a standard

The Grumpy Editor's guide to surviving the systemd debate

Posted Nov 15, 2014 5:46 UTC (Sat) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (4 responses)

> a modern component architecture would be web services or RESTful interfaces where you define the API but the implementations are independent of each other.
And that perfectly describes DBUS.

> As a somewhat relevant side note, there's a reason that the respected standards bodies require multiple independent implementations of something before they consider it for a standard
And DBUS has multiple independent implementations. I have my own small version in pure Rust, for example.

The Grumpy Editor's guide to surviving the systemd debate

Posted Nov 15, 2014 5:52 UTC (Sat) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link] (3 responses)

> I have my own small version in pure Rust, for example.

Ooh, nice. Linky please? :)

The Grumpy Editor's guide to surviving the systemd debate

Posted Nov 15, 2014 5:54 UTC (Sat) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (2 responses)

I'll send a link to http://discuss.rust-lang.org in a week or so, once it clears our IP lawyers.

The Grumpy Editor's guide to surviving the systemd debate

Posted Nov 15, 2014 6:06 UTC (Sat) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]

Woo, thanks. I'd love to use Rust as the language for my "no-DE" DBus service endpoints (logind, polkit, udisk, etc.). Both to get them done and to use Rust without it being a "eh, I'll reimplement this" project. *waits impatiently*

The Grumpy Editor's guide to surviving the systemd debate

Posted Dec 11, 2014 3:03 UTC (Thu) by mathstuf (subscriber, #69389) [Link]

Is this[1] it?

[1]https://github.com/diwic/dbus-rs