|:: Re: [DNG] Systemd as tragedy|
|This message is part of the following thread:|
|the complete thread tree sorted by date|
|Alessandro Selli at|
|Steve Litt at|
8:33 "What the traditional rc system really doesn't do is automated service management. You can bring in other tools to do that like runit or supervisord or other things, but that is bringing in third party stuff that thinks a bit differently to the way that everything else does, and so you kinda need to [stutter] it's this other notion of bringing in other things that you suddenly have to think of the way it thinks, the way your servicing manager thinks, and various other things, which again --- we kinda get used to, like if you pick runit and install it you kinda get used to the way runit thinks, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the impedence mismatch between what runit does and what rc does is good."
14:11-15:35: Introduces the concept he calls "system space" as a buffer between kernel space and user space, and then claims that made up space for systemd. He mentions several system related things to be regulated from there: network management, time, udev resolver libraries. He fails to mention that these things are done by pre-systemd Linux, and that to the extent they're not, they could easily be created as small subsystems with thin, understandable interfaces.
Blames the "angst" around systemd on the fact that it does things differently than they're used to (appeal to novelty), rather than the true cause that architecturally it's an entangled monolith.
17:08: Attempts to refute "It violates the Unix Philosophy" with the old "systemd comprised of many subsections so it's modular", and then a humorous comparison with BSD. His refutation fails with a thinking individual.
11:34 "And, what I find amusing occasionally is that a lot of people who bitch about systemd don't bitch about launchd [stuttermumble] I find that funny because systemd basically is launchd, in concept"
13:00 Discusses systemd as being reactive to hardware and software changes within the system, but never mentions there are other, simpler ways to do it (inotify and inotifywait, for one).
22:43 Proclaims the wonder of cgroups, without mentioning there are other ways of handling cgroups.
23:21 User level units: Proclaims the joy, but forgets to mention users can run personal daemontools, runit, s6 etc.
24:40 Trots out the old "we like change when we make it, but not when others are in charge", as if all change is good change. I once again remind of monolithic entanglement.
25:13 "You might not like systemd, but that doesn't mean you need to, you know, send death threats to Linux". Nice way to label systemd-avoiders as terrorists.
25:21 "Contempt isn't cool." Oh really? So contempt of things like bribery, graft, genocide, theft, and terrorism aren't cool? Is software the only arena that gets a pass from bad things being contemptible?