On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 09:30:50AM -0500, Daniel Taylor wrote:

[cut]

> > c) where and how would you draw the line indicating what's unacceptable about
> > systemd - in other words, what exactly do you mean by "the Unix paradigm" in
> > your comment above?
> Split out the PID 1 stuff to just the bare minimum of what needs to be
> there, organize everything else into appropriate units.
>
> This is not a trivial project, which is why nobody has taken it on AFAIK,
> but systemd must be doing something that package maintainers and developers
> want. That suggests that the way to beat them is to do that, only better.

The problem is exactly there: you don't really need systemd if you
just need a reliable PID 1. What appeals systemd's enthusiasts is the
process supervision and management system. Which is probably 90% of
the reason why systemd needed to fagocitate the whole low-level
user-space (please remember that the only way to reliably know that a
process is dead under unix is to be the parent of that process....).

I know the issue looks easy and straightforward on the surface. But
when you start looking into it seriously, you quickly realise that
things are not as straightforward as you thought ;)

My2Cents

KatolaZ

-- 
[ ~.,_  Enzo Nicosia aka KatolaZ - Devuan -- Freaknet Medialab  ]  
[     "+.  katolaz [at] freaknet.org --- katolaz [at] yahoo.it  ]
[       @)   http://kalos.mine.nu ---  Devuan GNU + Linux User  ]
[     @@)  http://maths.qmul.ac.uk/~vnicosia --  GPG: 0B5F062F  ] 
[ (@@@)  Twitter: @KatolaZ - skype: katolaz -- github: KatolaZ  ]