* Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@suse.de> [2011-06-17 17:06]:
Sure the agendas of a whole lot of people. Like every actively maintained project.
Systemd tries to solve the system service management, not just to replace init. It was clear from the beginning, and it wasn't started to just replace SYSV. It will be some sort of a base system on its own.
Judging by the current speed of adoption by distros, and the dropping of SYSV support by many of them, and the pressure coming from the enterprise people for advanced features, I don't think there is much to discuss on the general direction in the future, unless someone comes up with something else on top the current stuff.
Anyway, better join the development now, if you don't like the direction and want to influence things.
I guess that would not be very fruitful since I have rather fundamental concerns about the architecture and scope an init-replacement for openSUSE should have. While systemd certainly provides some attractive features over plain sysvinit such as automatic cgroup assignment and process supervision (the latter of which can of course also be provided by runit or deamontools on top of sysvinit or fsc on top of FreeBSD rc), the monolithic design and centralization of functionality to replace all kinds of unrelated things (handling mounting, LUKS encrypted volumes, changing system locale, time, and hostname, ConsoleKit, per-user session-handling etc.) is IMO a bad idea in terms of security, flexibility, and long-term maintainability (and ripping out systemd in order to replace it with the next big thing will not be fun). It is particularly inflexible and intransparent to admins who want to customize or change all the built-in functionality are now forced to read/write C code for that rather than being able to modify a simple shell script. In different usage screnarios such as a e.g. web or DB server systemd carries around a complex codebase with a lot of useless functionality and dependencies which cannot be easily stripped off.
Absolute nonsense. You have not even looked how systemd works. There is nothing to write in C, and scripts work like any other program works on the system.
I know you can run scripts from unit files, except that all the functionality which has now been centralized and implemented within systemd cannot be easily manipulated and scripted as before. The recent inconsistency is fstab parsing is a symptom why duplicating functionality is a bad idea.
Bootup is about service dependency, which includes full hotplug support, mounting of volumes, early host, locale, network setup, and all that.
Right, I was not talking about bootup but the management of locale, time, and hostname thorugh systemd. Or replacing ConsolKit, or managing user sessions and other stuff which has nothing to do with bootup and management of system services.
Current usual systems can not even mount a system disk that is plugged in after boot. It just didn't work at all before systemd, not a single working alternative besides partly Upstart was out there that could do what we need today.
Hm, care to elaborate? Also, I don't think handling that should be the task of a service manager.
It also forces one to run DBus which serves no useful purpose on a server but needlessly adds a new potential attack vector.
That's not true, systemd does not need the D-Bus server. You can even boot up without D-Bus if you have a systems that does not have D-Bus users. Systemd itself uses only private sockets and uses the D-Bus wire protocol, but not D-Bus as a service.
OK, I suppose the dependency on the dbus-1 package is an openSUSEism then. -- Guido Berhoerster -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org