Linda
I'm not getting involved with the "politics" but answer your specific [[ BTW -- ask anyone who knows me, I'm a VERY apolitic creature... I hate
Darren Thompson wrote: politics... I don't do politics well, I don't dissemble enough. But these days, maybe politics is what people call someone else's reasoning that they don't like or agree with? Traditionally politics has been about giving up this or that to get other things you want. And that seems to be what systemd is all about. To get one or two features that everyone wants, they are willing to accept the 60% they don't want... That's political compromise and that's the politics I hate....... Being forcibly compromised isn't usually considered a good thing. ]]
question: "What was the problem that needed to be solved?"
1. The ability to monitor and restart system daemons that fail.
Quite reasonable... something I've thought needed for some time -- a service manager... but, as in windows, that is started after boot...
2. "Port activity" based system startup
eh....niche case ... for portables to press play? I think the win8 redesign for portables as it was applied across the windows line sucked. I.e. for desktop users, it was a downgrade. hand-held usage shouldn't be driving the desktop top or the system as a whole.
3. Reduction in the number of "short lived" processes (mostly shell scripts) during start-up so more CPU cycles are used for "actual work".
Never saw this as a problem. My system boots in half the time under sysVinit as systemd -- but it's a workstation-server. Admittedly, I did (and periodically, do) go through each of the 300 lines in the chkconfig output as well as each boot script and verify what was needed. Many things were run at boot for things that didn't apply to most people's system. But all were run to handle all cases 'out of the box'...
4. Better tracking of process ownership so that processes can be traced and killed more eficiently (Via CGroup integration).
eh... not a big problem for me, but can see the usefulness of it... a better audit stream would take care of that that shows what descended from what...etc.
It's surprisingly well dicumetned here: http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html
I don;t recall ever reading the rational of "other" init systems...
---- I think most of them were interested in starting the system reliably and making it easy to maintain. The above problems are not something that needs handling in the way it is being done. ALL of the process tracking could have been handled through the existing audit facilities which allow process tracking -- ownership who spawned what. To claim he needs process 1 to track that demonstrates his ignorance of existing facilities. It sounds like he had some problems, came up with his own solutions in a vacuum and didn't ask what existing methods might already deal with some of them. A service-control manager has been a long time coming -- but having it manage boot, power, time, system priorities... that's way too much. I want to manage most of those other things. If he'd come up with separate products that could be integrated into existing frameworks, it wouldn't have been an issue. What is at issue is that it is ALL or nothing. I don't need 75% of what he's offering. I don't want to give up control of everything he is claiming for his own, in order to get even a 10% benefit. It makes it too hard for me to manage my system. It makes it easier for others to take over my system and manage it for me without my consent -- in ways much more invasive than what Microsoft does. That has me very concerned. His problem list, like his myth list seems padded with strawmen or nice toppings. He does all this and still don't have a solid unified desktop... bleh! Priorities? 1/2 :-) Thanks for the list & pointer (though his website is a bit hard to read...)... -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org