Anton Aylward wrote:
On 10/02/2016 05:08 AM, stakanov@freenet.de wrote:
His second point is that using interfaces that are only usable through systemd are like a vendor lock in. And in this I am quite able to follow the argument, things should stay modular.
That that sort of misses the point, doesn't it?
First the old sysv-init parts were only usable with BASH. Not the original Bourne shell, not the enhanced 1988 model Bourne shell. Not the C shall and not some of the other alternative shells.
??? Seems like it was open to POSIX compatible shells: sh/bash/ksh. What interpreter was used was specified on the 1st line. I saw many with /bin/sh, though I would guess the majority were /bin/bash because it is able to say more with less (more power, more consise).
Oh, and not with Windows, either. Or the Atari, the PlayStation or the X-Box. Or VMS. Or VM/CMS.
Neither systemd. These are *nix offerings -- but you can run bash on Windows, either under cygwin or native. From what I hear, MS will be offering bash-native as an alternative shell under Win10. If you want the POSIX startup -- run cygwin and write it. It's not that sysV can't startup the system, but MS doesn't provide the hooks for it.
And yes, I know, each of those does 'vendor lock-in' as well.
So its a fundamentally irrelevant argument.
--- Baloney! SysV doesn't put the vendor lock-in in its offering. With a shell script, it can call anything. It's important as to where the vendor lock-in is. If it is at the system level like Windows and systemd (requires it be started 1st), then you can't add to it using off-the-shelf parts that read stdin & write stdout/err.
The second this is that systemd *is* modular.
Bull. Show me where I can replace the part that sits @ pid=1 with a simple script.
That it depends on sending messages via the D-Bus or sockets to the init process doesn't make it any less modular than the dependency sysv-init has on the shell.
Sorry, but the script parts communicate with pipes and text. That's the way the *entire* user-space works. To move to requiring special formats and special sockets, etc is not open or modular.
I recall reading about a comparison with VMS in the 1980s. A VMS developer in California commented that the bookshelf of the VMS documentation was a major threat if it collapsed on him in an earthquake. The UNIX documentation of the time, even the bloated USG version which I still have, occupied less than half a shelf.
Right, because the interface between parts in Unix was *simple*. Vs. VMS/Windows/Systemd = structured and specific. You can't just "echo" a string into a DBUS socket. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org