Re: If Not Systemd, then What?
On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 08:12:17 +0200
Ludovic Meyer <ludo.v.meyer@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 09:34:48PM -0400, Steve Litt wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 12:45:11 -0700
> > Patrick Bartek <nemommxiv@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > After much vitriolic gnashing of teeth from those opposed to
> > > systemd, I wonder... What is a better alternative?
> >
> > * Nosh
>
> So this one is fun, it is just a direct copy of the systemd service
> format. Guess the proof that's at least a feature that people do
> want, dropping shell.
I think you meant a direct copy of daemontools, didn't you?
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jonathan.deboynepollard/Softwares/nosh.html
It's not a direct copy, it's an enhanced superset of daemontools, kind
of. Daemontools preceded systemd by several years, and I sincerely doubt
daemontools and systemd have anything in common.
>
> And of course, not only the format is copied, it took the set of
> systemd services and copied them like this. I am sure ftp-masters
> wouldn't accept a GPL violation ( as the .service file are likely not
> un the BSD ).
Daemontools wasn't GPL'ed, it was Public Domained, so anyone can do
absolutely anything with it.
>
> > * Runit
>
> was non free for a long time, not sure if developped
> anymore, especially since last post on one of the ml date back to
> June 2013.
Funtoo is using it, and I seriously doubt they'd be using something not
developed anymore.
>
> > * Upstart
>
> no longer developped, and suffer from several bugs, go read the
> tech-ctte debate.
I read it, and if Upstart problems were the most distressing thing in
that debate, I'd be a happy man. If Upstart is no longer under
development, the reason would be that the Debian CTTE decided on
systemd, so Cannonical reluctantly followed suit.
>
> > * S6
>
> likely the same as runit when it come to be alive.
>
> > * Probably more I don't know about.
>
> You could add openrc, the only serious contender.
Thanks. I hereby add openrc, assuming it's ready now.
>
>
> > > And it can't be sysvinit.
> > >
> > > Yes. Syvinit still works, but it is after all 20 years old. It's
> > > been patched and bolted onto and jury-rigged
> >
> > Nobody's arguing for sysvinit as a long term solution, for the exact
> > reasons you post above. Those of us who appeared to favor sysvinit
> > were saying "let's wait until we have something good." We also
> > pointed out the false choice of prematurely narrowing it to
> > systemd, Upstart or sysvinit.
>
> You mean "let's do like we did since 20 years, wait, in case if
> something will happen". None of the alternatives you propose have
> been widely adopted by anyone except upstart. And that's mostly
> because no one cared about them up to the point to even propose them.
The reason nobody paid attention to them yet is the alternative wasn't
systemd until now. systemd is a mighty motivator, I'll say that for it.
> > Now of course, the systemd cabal will argue that we can't wait any
> > longer. My question to them is, why was sysvinit not a dire
> > emergency until Red Hat's systemd juggernaut came along, and then
> > all of a sudden we just couldn't wait?
>
> You mean that after waiting several years, the solution is to wait
> again, because no one cared before,
That is *exactly* what I mean. Don't move to a worse position, and if
this had really been life or death, systemd would have been gone a few
years ago.
> and when 1 group came and
> changed, the solution is to refuse and go back doing nothing ?
Now that, I didn't say. Go back and read the quoted text.
SteveT
Steve Litt * http://www.troubleshooters.com/
Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance
Reply to: