ianseeks wrote:
On Friday, 7 October 2016 10:19:36 BST Philipp Thomas wrote:
* Larry Stotler (larrystotler@gmail.com) [20161002 22:50]:
systemd to me personally has always seemed to be a solution in search of a problem.
Thats one of those statements i see where a lot negative and incorrect ideas have run out, a bit like "its monolithic".
Caught this in looking for something. You apparently didn't see where I explained why it was monolithic, and I wanted to explain why it was -- as well as using "proprietary" interfaces (ones owned by systemd vs. non-proprietary interfaces that might be considered "open" or "public". It is monolithic because its parts are not designed to be "drop-in-replaceable" by any other non-sysD part. You can't replace any of the parts of systemd that have replaced the earlier parts. Good example: syslog. Syslog was easily interchangeable with ng-syslog and rsyslog. But none of those logs are able to replace systemd's journal. You can add them on as an afterthough -- but not as a drop-in replacement for journal. SysD's parts are interdependent so the they can't be replaced -- I might want to use the redhat cgroup manager instead of Sysd -- can I replace Sysd's ownership of the cgroups or "Init"? Say I develop an init and want to use it in place of SysD -- but just for capturing dead procs and such (creating a subscription mechanism usable by other "parties", including SysD). Could I simply drop it in and have it work? Of course not! That's why SysD is monolithic -- it can't be used for its separate parts which are mostly indivisible as they use each other in ways that are _proprietary_ to SysD (i.e. there is no *open*, widely supported interface to interact with them. Proprietary mean "owned by someone" -- in this case sysd -- which has appropriated the previous "open" interfaces and replaced them with interfaces that only other SysD 'units' use. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org