Re: If Not Systemd, then What?
On 22/10/14 20:27, Miles Fidelman wrote:
> Scott Ferguson wrote:
>> On 21/10/14 15:10, Miles Fidelman wrote:
>>> Scott Ferguson wrote:
>>>> Good question Patrick - top posted as I'm referring to the Subject.
>>>>
>>>> On 21/10/14 06:45, Patrick Bartek wrote:
>>>>> After much vitriolic gnashing of teeth from those opposed to systemd,
>>>>> I wonder... What is a better alternative? 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 to get it to do things that
>>>>> weren't even around (or dreamt of) at its inception. It's long past
>>>>> due for a contemporary replacement. Whatever that may be.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, what would you all propose? For a server? Or for a user desktop?
>>>>> Or something that fulfills both scenarios? And why?
>>>> One of the difficulties is that there is no clear distinction between a
>>>> desktop and a server - just degrees.
>>>>
>>> Um, yes, there is. Typically different hardware (headless for
>>> starters), storage area networks, clusters, high availability, as well
>>> as different role, and so forth.
>>>
>>> Miles
>>>
>> With respect, you're just repeating your claim that there is a clear
>> distinction between server and desktop - not proving it, which doesn't
>> advance the discussion.
>
> Ok, let's start with:
> - it's the rare desktop that has a fiber channel interface
> - it's the rare desktop that has an interface for dual-ported disk drives
> - it's the rare desktop configuration that splits processing and storage
> (e.g., blade servers + storage servers)
> - in servers, large RAID arrays are common, desktops might have a pair
> of mirrored disks, never seen anybody set up a desktop for RAID5,6,10
> - these days, servers are generally run in clusters, with cluster file
> systems, and environments like openstack on top of them
> - when it comes to performance, desktops generally emphasize graphics
> performance (e.g., for gaming, video editing, and such); servers are
> designed more for how many virtual machines they can run
> - high-availability clustering is a big data center concern, not a
> desktop concern (anybody run DRBD, or Corosync on a dekstop?)
> - when it comes to virtualization, on desktops its mostly for running
> programs in other environments; for servers its mostly about supporting
> lots of independent users and services
> - when's the last time you saw a desktop or laptop with an IPMI BMC (or
> for that matter, had a BMC infected by a virus - not pretty) (note: if
> you don't know what BMC stands for, then go away and learn something
> about serious data centers, before weighing in on the distinctions
> between desktops and servers)
> - scalability, optimization for transaction processing, high-volume mail
> processing, etc., etc., etc. - not issues that one worries about on the
> desktop
I don't disagree with any of the above.
Respectfully, I repeat:-
; there is no *clear* distinction between server and desktop.
; you have not advanced the discussion (expand and/or tangent != advance)
>
>>
>> Samba is a server, as is NFS, and apache. If you run them on a desktop
>> is it still *just* a desktop?
>>
>> Can you not run a desktop on server hardware?
>
> Generally not - except remotely - given that most servers are headless
> and don't have graphics boards.
Please, you're a smart guy and have no need to stoop to advancing
selective cases as evidence of *clear* distinctions.
> Yeah, one can X- into a server, if you
> install the software. Many (most?) don't - CLI and various management
> tools is plenty good for server admin
Agreed.
<snipped>
> one of the reasons that a lot of sysadmins don't like systemd).
Opinions vary - not that "a lot" is *not* case, but that "a lot"
constitutes a "significant" percentage - or a "majority".
Of the sysadmin I've spoken to - the majority (a slight majority) hold
an opinion similar to mine:- we don't have one[*1], we are *very* wary
of "popular opinion" (lowest common denominator?), we are primarily
technicians and engineers not writers and have a strong preference for
demonstrated facts ("in the course of extensive testing").
[*1] as a result of "considering" two opposing opinions
>
>> Can you not run a server on desktop hardware?
>
> Not if you're supporting a serious load - unless you're clustering lots
> of machines (but once you cluster a few hundred motherboards, you're
> talking a desktop machine, you're talking a cluster).
Again, selective instances. *Not* "clear cut distinctions".
>
>>
>> I don't "believe" you've thought this through... :
>>
>> I'll leave pulseaudio out, just to make things simpler (and acknowledge
>> that "simple" is a synonym for "dumb").
>
> I don't believe you have any knowledge whatsoever about data centers or
> real servers - and are talking through your hat.
That's the problem with "beliefs" - they can be the core of
"confirmation bias" - as to the insults, I'd normally associate that
with a lack of argument. Neither of which I expect of you.
> That you even mention
> audio in the same conversation as
> servers says you're in a different universe.
Pulseaudio is a *server*.
I excluded it from the conversation. Your "argument" (in that paragraph)
is misguided.
>
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> P.S. I have been told that one major distro does (or is attempting to
>> do) just that - separate into a 'server' and a 'desktop' distribution.
>>
>
> Let's see:
> - IBM doesn't do desktops
> - Windows has very separate desktop and server-side editions
> - MacOS comes in separate flavors
> - BSDs are primarily server oriented
> - Until recently, most Linux distros were server oriented - particularly
> Debian, I might add -- Linux on the desktop is a new phenomenon
> - Solaris is mostly a server side o/s (workstations are small servers,
> not large desktops)
> - In the Linux world Ubuntu comes in desktop, server, and cloud varieties
> - RHEL is almost entirely server oriented (can you say "Enterprise",
> Gluster, JBoss, ....?)
> - SUSE has desktop, server, and cloud varieties
Your point is lost - perhaps in your desperation to find fault with what
I've said in an uncharacteric personal issue. Clearly I've misjudged you
as someone who could be expected to provide an emotion free technical
discussion.
>
> Again - if you didn't know that, then you're talking out of ignorance.
If you can't understand the single sentence you are so angrily, and
wrongly responding to, you are too emotionally invested in a point of
view. Take a breath and re-read it. It's not an attack on you, your
views - or an argument.
>
> Miles Fidelman
>
>
>
>
> https://wiki.debian.org/DebianMailingLists#Gmail
Reply to: