|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Distributors ponder a systemd change

Distributors ponder a systemd change

Posted Jun 13, 2016 10:50 UTC (Mon) by johannbg (guest, #65743)
In reply to: Distributors ponder a systemd change by anselm
Parent article: Distributors ponder a systemd change

Perhaps end users can cover the very basic of systemd in an hour or two but for upstreams it requires them to have in depth understanding to be able to accept and or write and maintain an proper type unit file. So for upstreams ( and arguably administrators as well ) it takes a much more time both to grasp it and then to fully test it with their application or application stack and or infrastructure and it environment(s).

People that approach and view systemd as a new technology with new concepts adapt to it quicker than those with any background in any legacy init system in which they more often than not approach systemd as an legacy init system and apply legacy init system concepts that are not applicable to systemd ( and expect same and similar outcome or behavior ) like for example the concept of "run levels" which does not exist in systemd but the concept of boot targets does etc.


to post comments

Distributors ponder a systemd change

Posted Jun 13, 2016 12:22 UTC (Mon) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] (1 responses)

In my experience as a Linux instructor, one or two hours of systemd instruction is adequate to provide the basics for people who would otherwise be using System-V init as system administrators. Building on that, it is certainly more feasible to spend another couple of hours teaching somebody how to write a systemd service unit file for a new service and to integrate that into an existing setup, than it is to spend a couple of days teaching them enough shell scripting and distribution-specific minutiae to be able to write a robust System-V init script for a new service and to integrate that into an existing setup, on one single distribution. (The next distribution is going to be subtly, or not so subtly, different.)

For an upstream project, it is reasonable to invest the time to produce a good systemd-based configuration, which by now is likely to be applicable with few if any changes to a large number of platforms, because the effort for that is going to be smaller, in the long run, than the effort required to test and tweak new versions of their application (or application stack) on a huge number of subtly different legacy environments that all require some degree of individual adaptation.

Distributors ponder a systemd change

Posted Jun 13, 2016 16:01 UTC (Mon) by johannbg (guest, #65743) [Link]

In my experience as linux instructor as well as handling the migration of legacy sysv initscripts in the hundreds I agree that the learning curve for systemd is less than the learning curve of both system-v and bash and shell scripting combined but managing to cram into students heads all the different type units ( close to 20 now ) within an hour or two and manage to have them write them as well within that time frame well let's just say you must have higher intelligent and more efficient audience or relatively few in class compared to me and the problem with subtle difference between distribution still exist so the notion that that upstream can use the same type unit file across distribution is not always so ( thou in many cases it will just work ).

Daemon vs socket activation, path used in type units and simply the name of the component ( apache vs httpd for example ) etc still differs between distributions and that problem will never be solved unless unification in the core/baseOS can be achieve so those upstream(s) that actually care and ship initscripts of any kind are still dealing with that issue.


Copyright © 2025, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds