Re: I'm not a huge fan of systemd
On Sat 19 Jul 2014 at 08:00:20 -0400, The Wanderer wrote:
> 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.
This principle, as you express it, sounds very attractive and, I
believe, received some exposure in #727708. However, it appears not to
have had the persuasive content to combat the technical merits of the
chosen init system.