On 2014-04-17 05:25, Linda Walsh wrote:
SystemD tries to *BE* every freaking service....
That is so clearly not so I can't understand why you are so asserting it.
Well, first there was "sysVinit", then "syslog", then went "udevd", then went "powerd"., um... now it's taking out "xinetd/inetd".
You forget cron.
A few months back there was a lively exchange between RedHat and Linus as they pressured him to accept their trusted code into the kernel so they can boot Redndoes. While linus told them to use existing means, they'll likely try again in other ways to get better control of the kernel under systemd.
Have a look at this one: <http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTY1MzA> Linux Kernel Developers Fed Up With Ridiculous Bugs In Systemd +++···················· That's where we now get another tirade by Linus Torvalds bashing systemd developers for making kernel developers work around their problems. Linus says he will refuse to merge any code from Red Hat's Kay Sievers until their code is cleaned up and not constantly causing problems. ... Key, I'm f*cking tired of the fact that you don't fix problems in the code *you* write, so that the kernel then has to work around the problems you cause. ····················++-
Yes, compared to XinetD, systemd is very sophisticated. My point here is to show that systemd is not the violation of any basic UNIX principles but an evolution of them.
Open and simple? Using text files for config rather than binary? Um... going for small pieces that do single things so other competing products can be dropped in to replace functionality (like mlocate being dropped in for locate -- as an example, or the hopping between boot loaders). If there is only 1 large systemd that does all of the funcions that previously had "competition", then we no longer have modularity or the ability to choose the better implementations.
That's my feeling, too. -- Cheers / Saludos, Carlos E. R. (from 13.1 x86_64 "Bottle" at Telcontar)