Re: A few observations about systemd
Le vendredi 22 juillet 2011 à 11:32 +0200, Stephan Seitz a écrit :
> So let systemd be part of Debian, but not as default init system. Maybe
> it can be used in about five years when all third party software is
> supporting it.
Seriously, I suggest that you document yourself instead of writing
whatever crap spins through your head. Where does this “five years”
figure come from? Do you know what would happen to the project if we
waited for five years before adopting new technologies?
Since systemd is backwards-compatible with existing init scripts, it can
(and should) be made the default very quickly. But just doing so would
only get us minor benefit. It’s having it as the default (and only) init
system that will allow us to rip off useless code and rely on new
features.
> >Server or desktop, the hardware and the kernel are entirely event-based
> >now. This is important for the network, and it is even more important
>
> Why?
>
> >for the boot system. It’s not a question of changing configuration files
> >or whatnot, it’s a question of having it working, and working reliably.
>
> Strang, for me it *is* working reliably.
Please stop considering yourself the center of the world.
> >features. An init system is not something for the user to see, it should
> >just do the job properly.
>
> This will only work if you don’t support third party software. As long as
> a user can (or must) install other daemon software he has to work with
> the init system. Now you can guess if the user will find more
> documentation about integrating the new service with sysvinit or systemd.
Users will find more documentation about integrating new services with
sysvinit than with insserv (which has a lot of specificities already).
Shall we go back to the old sysvinit?
> >That’s because init scripts are full of hacks to work around its
> >deficiencies, thanks to tireless tuning work from the maintainers. And
> >even with these hacks, you can always meet a condition (hardware
> >combination, complex partitioning scheme, network configuration) for
> >which it will not work, or - even worse - work randomly.
>
> Maybe but it is working for me and for all people I know. How many people
> are having problems that it is worth the trouble of changing?
We have to cope with inferior infrastructure which is not on par with
the kernel that lies underneath. We are regularly bitten by bugs for
which we stack workarounds without knowing for how long they will work.
All these efforts are questionable when they could be used to develop a
better technology that doesn’t require them. When the new technology
already exists, they are entirely useless.
--
.''`. Josselin Mouette
: :' :
`. `'
`-
Reply to: