On Sunday, 23 October 2016 21:52:47 BST Todd Rme wrote:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2016 at 7:06 PM, Linda Walsh
wrote: ianseeks wrote:
On Friday, 7 October 2016 10:19:36 BST Philipp Thomas wrote:
* Larry Stotler (larrystotler@gmail.com) [20161002 22:50]:
systemd to me personally has always seemed to be a solution in search of a problem.
Thats one of those statements i see where a lot negative and incorrect ideas have run out, a bit like "its monolithic".
--- Caught this in looking for something.
You apparently didn't see where I explained why it was monolithic, and I wanted to explain why it was -- as well as using "proprietary" interfaces (ones owned by systemd vs. non-proprietary interfaces that might be considered "open" or "public".
It is monolithic because its parts are not designed to be "drop-in-replaceable" by any other non-sysD part.
Of course they are. It is just that no one has bothered to make such replacements in most cases.
You can't replace any of the parts of systemd that have replaced the earlier parts. Good example: syslog. Syslog was easily interchangeable with ng-syslog and rsyslog. But none of those logs are able to replace systemd's journal. You can add them on as an afterthough -- but not as a drop-in replacement for journal.
There is an enormous difference between saying program A can't be replaced with program B and saying program A can't be replaced at all. You only provide examples of the first case, but then claim the second. Yes, systemd's tools work in different ways than previous tools. That is why people wrote new tools to begin with, to satisfy needs and use-cases the older tools didn't fill. So it is no surprise that older tools don't act as drop-in replacements. But there is nothing stopping someone else from writing a tool that could act as a replacement.
Say I develop an init and want to use it in place of SysD -- but just for capturing dead procs and such (creating a subscription mechanism usable by other "parties", including SysD). Could I simply drop it in and have it work?
Of course you could, as long as it provided the features needed by the programs you want it to work with. systemd's components all use standard linux tools to talk to each other and all talk using open, documented interfaces. There is absolutely nothing whatsoever preventing anyone from replacing any one of them with their own, completely independent program. This hasn't happened much because opponents of systemd aren't willing to put in the effort, there is nothing whatsoever preventing it.
Of course not! That's why SysD is monolithic -- it can't be used for its separate parts which are mostly indivisible as they use each other in ways that are _proprietary_ to SysD (i.e. there is no *open*, widely supported interface to interact with them.
The interfaces aren't "widely supported" solely because no one who opposed systemd has made any effort to support them. There is nothing stopping anyone else from supporting them other than the fact that systemd opponents aren't willing to put in the effort.
Unfortunately people seem to forgot that its open source and if they want to do something different from the norm then they'll have to step up and do the work - they just want it "done their way". -- opensuse:tumbleweed:20161022 Qt: 5.7.0 KDE Frameworks: 5.27.0 KDE Plasma: 5.8.2 kwin5-5.8.2-159.1.x86_64 kmail5-16.08.2-1.1.x86_64 Kernel: 4.8.3-1-default Nouveau: 1.0.13_1.1 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org