On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 16:33 +0200, Guido Berhoerster wrote:
* Kay Sievers
[2011-06-16 16:20]: and with Debian and Ubuntu two major distros have already opted out of that.
'That' means systemd? Debian is very active in systemd development, and Ubuntu hasn't decided anything, besides the fact that the original author from Canonical has left, and is no longer developing Upstart.
AFAIK Debian plans to offer it as an option but as default due to systemd being Linux-only, from a quick glance at the upstart repo it seems that upstart is actively maintained. So the major distributions participating in this "standardiaztion" seem to be Fedora, oS, and possibly Mageia/Mandriva.
Intel's MeeGo has switched already, ChromeOS is currently evaluating, and many of the embedded distros and custom images in the entertainment and automotive industry already use it.
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. Bootup is about service dependency, which includes full hotplug support, mounting of volumes, early host, locale, network setup, and all that. What you are talking about is the picture of the UNIX stone age. You can still do that on your box, I guess, nothing wrong with it, but it's not what we need to survive the future. 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.
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. Kay -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-project+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-project+help@opensuse.org