2013/5/24 brian m. carlson <sand...@crustytoothpaste.net>: > On Fri, May 24, 2013 at 01:45:46AM +0200, Matthias Klumpp wrote: >> 2013/5/24 brian m. carlson <sand...@crustytoothpaste.net>: >> > The Unix Way is to use separate processes >> > for separate tasks. >> ...and this is what systemd does! It's not like we have an >> event-logger, hotkey-handling and seat-management all in pid0. It is >> all nicely split into separate processes. The journal is mainly used >> to produce structured logs and to log the early boot process (which I >> find *very* nice, it helped me a lot already!), but you can turn it's >> functionality off[1]. > > Yes, systemd uses separate processes, but they are not independent. > They cannot be independently turned off. If I decide I do not want the > journal features, however useful others might think they are, I should > not have to resort to chmod and dpkg-statoverride to keep them from > running. Let them be optional features which the core systemd can be > used without. I will ask about the journal reasoning, but most of the other tools are usable without systemd (like hostnamed, systemd-detect-virt, systemd-tmpfiles, systemd-udevd, ...). There are some, like logind, which use systemd internals to (e.g. here make multiseat possible). Ubuntu carries patches downstream to make logind work without systemd but with upstart instead, but I don't think that doing that is a sane solution.
>> There will be a reason why it cannot be removed completely too. >> I think it is valid to see "systemd" as a compilation of basic tools >> for a Linux system, which also includes an init-system. > > The problem is that it would be great as just an init system. I love it > as an init system: it boots very, very fast and shuts down very, very > fast. But that's all I want it to do: be an init system. I *have* a > syslog daemon. I *have* tools to handle hotkeys. It should be a great > init system, and (at least be able to be configured to be) *absolutely > nothing else*: one small, limited process with PID 1. One of the goals of systemd is to unify all the different solutions available on Linux to handle stuff the same way or to at least define stable interfaces for application developers and administrators to use. This is also a reason why it is at Freedesktop ;-) (but mainly because fd.o provides vendor- and project-independent code hosting).I like systemd *especially* for providing these interfaces as cross-distro interoperability, but I understand if some people don't welcome it. Regarding tools, depending on the packaging, it should be possible to replace most of them or use different implementations. Systemd is very modular in that regard. Also, systemd spawns one process with minimal dependencies and less code - most of the other features are stored in separate binaries, which may or may not exist. This modularity is proven by Ubuntu, which manages to ship the systemd services in an extra package to provide interfaces to logind (although I don't like this approach, it is great to have most of the interfaces available on Ubuntu too now). Cheers, Matthias -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAKNHny-Yx7yjbt6GT936MQ9ybJubeUh33CW5GKogB=8rebi...@mail.gmail.com
