Re: I'm not a huge fan of systemd
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On 07/19/2014 07:28 AM, Andrei POPESCU wrote:
> It seems to me like you're trolling, but I'll assume good faith and
> reply anyway.
>
> On Vi, 18 iul 14, 18:22:49, Steve Litt wrote:
>> And although his email doesn't talk about user space *applications*
>> getting entangled the init system, I have a feeling he wasn't
>> envisioning rank and file applications requiring parts of the init
>> system.
>
> And your point is?
I suspect it may be the principle which I've been turning over in my
mind lately, and which I think would be expressed as:
"No functionality which anything not part of the init system might
legitimately want to depend on should be implemented (primarily) as part
of the init system."
Or, more concisely but less clearly, "Software not part of an init
system should be init-system-agnostic." (With obvious exceptions for
e.g. tools designed to manipulate the config files or init scripts for a
particular init system.)
E.g., the functionality provided by systemd-logind is something that
things outside of the init system might (and do) legitimately want to
depend on, so it should not be implemented as part of the init system.
If systemd-logind is not part of the systemd init system, all
functionality which it depends on should be implemented outside of the
init system.
Conversely, if systemd-logind is part of the systemd init system, the
functionality which outside programs want to depend on should not be
implemented as part of it.
I suspect, with little evidence except the design choices that have
already been made, that the systemd maintainers/developers would
actively reject this principle.
- --
The Wanderer
Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.
A government exists to serve its citizens, not to control them.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJTyl3UAAoJEASpNY00KDJr9rAP/A/qmoWocGbHKY0lhEUSVtjB
eiAcfFbJwqsH/CqL6m4KaITiNzyz7UJwOk+nvMjWPOOilcL08WEm+tScnc2Yczdl
9QkPRuj8iIU/Ml1uiEh65lBlw2ng19edY5n098N4aGq+OqYmuUln/6psq676fqOp
wt2z6kdDI7EqLwjiCnwbOQkGeSWY6ZPmnG/cSEbhXzVBgo5MPcPA62uxOPtAFZ6d
lY3kcmRVZXanfU+sB2uQ3e9zTRaotFLkUU86CDKUbOQnAu/ejiG4PoNu67cYTvno
LweQonjmKvK6Fqw0v9VncnfHbsW+iuRDal5qeGqihUHXkrDbKijiZm3f7O5JNxoE
5bwXMZ2vDnEjqJEjVxvmdFxMIJTZDpCUSkWEZd6YzJIoBD6peeHUGfM4YP6GsUKC
YKOkv/jbktY1BcE/Ph0AQnKUVDMYANlJ8H4EE1y0/wVQacWNv6SPHYfN5derHGHJ
2SfsddsOAgPW+hFlF0GH3uUzIog+YB5aeMlzAiyuVA8cUeeZ9eM420ZpSYUKq++b
gSnedsuAS1FCl4eQzzXUEBQU0FKRZW+ntyApBAGjMT/PK+HBlB5HTzgUzjXLA9UU
nfVSKoEcvC3SGTSOWvsBrtDSsxJKHaW04DXmZHKJphUuGwZnPTVbHGcSKFojYWxb
qG0+H71f/LERzhgGQi5D
=jJJW
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: