[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Survey answers part 3: systemd is not portable and what this means for our ports



On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 03:15:12PM +0800, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> On 07/18/2013 01:29 AM, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > - Reliable, low-maintenance system startup (no races / ordering bugs)
> 
> Could you point at these bugs?
> 
> > - Reliable service supervision
> 
> Have you tried using rc-status? Or do you mean restarting crashed daemons?
> 

Having not used OpenRC, I have no comment on the real world advantages
or disadvantages of either init system. However, I don't think that the
rc-status command has anything to do with this (though systemctl is
nice). What is mostly being brought up is the service tracking, socket
activation, cgroups and more.


> > - Fast startup
> 
> I thought everyone claimed (including systemd supporters) that this was
> a "teenager side effect" which we didn't care much about.
  
Yes, but it is also a benefit of using systemd.
 
> > - Sensible dynamic service management in response to post-boot events
> >   (network up/down, device add/remove, etc).
> 
> Isn't this the role of udev?
> 
> > - Simple, declarative syntax
> > 
> > My understanding is that OpenRC only addresses the last of these points, and
> > adds nothing over sysv-rc for the rest.
> 
> I don't agree with this view, and I believe that indeed, you
> miss-understood. This wiki page (which has been posted here before)
> doesn't agree with your view either:
> 
> http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Talk:Comparison_of_init_systems
> 
> Reducing OpenRC improvements to only the syntax of init scripts is just
> not right. Cgroups support and the rc-status command alone are nice
> features that you discarded/forgot/didn't know about.

I seriously can't tell if you're simply trolling here. If you read this
page, it's quite easy to notice that whoever wrote this had some serious
issues with systemd. Just a few things that catch my eye:

* 'Hurting feature of systemd' in the header
* 'Timer based application: proprietary': What? That doesn't even make
  sense.
* 'Graphical UI: yes': Nope.
* All of the 'OpenRC bonus features', which mostly just seem to be
  wrong.
* Saying that they have parallel startup and then at the end saying that
  it should be removed from config files entirely because it just
  doesn't work.

If you're going to cite something showing that OpenRC is good, please
don't show something that is so obviously biased it's not even funny
anymore.

Thanks,

-- 
William Giokas | KaiSforza | http://kaictl.net/
GnuPG Key: 0x73CD09CF
Fingerprint: F73F 50EF BBE2 9846 8306  E6B8 6902 06D8 73CD 09CF

Attachment: pgpOI2EMRO1UZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: