On 2 March 2014 10:53:51 WET, Jack <j...@jackpot.uk.net> wrote: >Systemd scares me. As far as I can see it does a lot of things right >(in >some cases these are things that no other contender does right); I'm >not >going to try to enumerate those things, that's been one elsewhere. But >the way systemd has been designed, in particular the way it has borged >dbus and syslog, is a real problem for me. > >I try to build systems that only run those daemons the system really >needs. This is partly for security, and partly because I have several >systems that are resource-challenged. Many of those systems have no >GUI, >and until now needed no dbus. I try to run nothing that depends on >polkit or consolekit (it's a coincidence that those components are also >Lennart's work). > >But the systemd approach is to use dbus for all IPC; and dbus is now >part of systemd. Dbus is complicated; I don't begin to understand it. >SystemD places dbus at the heart of PID1, and that IMO was a >questionable technical decision. > >SystemD isn't just an init system; it also uses the CGROUPs kernel >feature to manage user sessions. I don't understand why that >functionality was incorporated into the init program. An init system, >IMO, should restrict itself to bringing up services. > >I *really* don't want binary logs. I realise that I can make the new >journald pass all log output to a text-based syslog daemon; but then >I'm >running a journald that I don't need. > >Similarly I have no need for a logind: even those of my systems that >have a GUI are not multi-seat. > >If only systemd had been designed as a smorgasbord - a set of >components >designed to work in concert, but each being susceptible to being >omitted >in favour of its predecessor, then I would have been much less >uncomfortable about it. > >I think it's great that Debian provides the only mainstream platform >that supports The Hurd an kFreeBSD kernels, although I don't use them. >The choice of systemd as a default init system will inevitably >marginalise those kernels in Debian, which I think is sad. > >I do hope that those working on writing standalone components that >implement the various systemd interfaces are successful (and soon). I >will probably be sticking with Wheezy/SysV as long as possible, or >until >the prospects of those efforts becomes clear. I wish I had the chops to >contribute to those projects - I believe they have the potential to >match the strengths of systemd, while avoiding the birds-nest of >dependencies that makes systemd seem such a heavy, take-it-or-leave-it >deal. > >Of course, the CTTE's decision concerned the *default* init system for >Jessie. Other init systems will continue to be packaged. So it's not an >apocalypse. > >But systemd does *so much*, and so many other distros have decided to >adopt it, that I fear that applications will come to rely on its >features; the other init systems will be marginalised, and eventually >wither. We will then all become dependent on Red Hat for a large part >of >our critical infrastructure. Red Hat is a billion-dollar commercial >operation, with goals that are very different from Debian's. So I fear >the CTTE's decision may in time come to harm the Debian project. I am also only a Debian user and I don't know much about the matter, but if I understand correctly systemd is a drop in replacement for sysV, which has a lot more functionalities but works fine with sysV initscrits.
Wouldn't it be possible, in the future, to write a replacement to systemd which works fine with the systemd configuration, but that doesn't have most of those problems that systemd has? -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-security-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/407a788a-4d3f-480a-ad6e-509d2a2ef...@email.android.com