On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 11:44 AM, Bruce Dubbs <[email protected]> wrote: > > I'm not going to quote Armin's message but answer a couple of points. > > A lot of the ideas in systemd are good. It's the implementation that sucks. > Why can't we just substitute journald for syslogd? Why do we have to have a > different init to go with it? > > Why does Gnome now insist on systemd? > > Is systemd useful on a LAMP server that does not have X? > > The UNIX Philosophy is not obsolete. It's a lot easier to get a small > program right than a large one. It's also easier to find problems and fix > them. Anyone who has studied Software Engineering will understand that. > > Xorg is a dinosaur that needs to be redesigned and replaced. That is being > done, but it really should have nothing to do with systemd. > > -- Bruce > > > -- > http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev > FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ > Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Plus, Bruce the UNIX philosophy was designed so that a monolithic project could eventually, if able to, be broken down into the sum of it's parts effectively without a core. You even mentioned a prime example with X. X is a dinosaur, but honestly, when you resolve dependencies on X, you never need to install all of X, except a few packages spread around. Wayland is supposed to fix this, but Wayland isn't mature yet. However, X.org did move X into a better direction with the breakdown of packages. It was a start towards the bazaar model and modularity. systemd however is a monolithic cathedral project regardless of how you look at it. You can't just build logind without udev, systemd, journald, etc. You can't just built the systemd-init without journald and udev. By nature and design systemd is cathedralistic and entirely monolithic in nature. At no point is it based in bazaar and modularity. The authors can say what they want but it's only wishing thinking on something that is what it is. Plus, Debian isn't still a great design to go from. Debian has started reporting issues with journald being corrupted by unexplained problems. This cascades into Nautilus making something like copy-pasting files almost impossible. Plus, Gnome is not the best desktop environment anyways, and in many ways KDE and Xfce have both surpassed it in every way. And Bruce, it doesn't even take Software Engineering to understand the bazaar/modular design is better in every way, it's just good common sense (of uncommon sense depending on point of view with modern society) that a smaller project with tighter focus can be better designed and have less problems. I only have an A+ certification and know only enough about writing shell scripts, a small amount of c coding, and relying on books and examples for the rest, as well as other people who I trust. On the topic of Boot times, no init system is perfect at this. As it was mentioned before, boot time is always going to be irrelevant. I've had 9-12 second boot times off Runit respectively and 8-13 seconds off systemd, and even 6-18 seconds with a properly configured system-v setup as well. But I've seen with bad designs of each 30+ seconds of boot time, with systemd having on one occasion with a bad read from fstab a boot time of 70 seconds hiccuping over the fact I set an EXT4 partition with "default" as a flag, system-v with 90 seconds due to heavy loading services, and maybe 35-40 seconds with Runit getting stuck on loading dhclient (using the lsb scripts, not traditional Runit service run files) due to the fact udevd didn't settle correctly and was still loading a driver, though eventually I did find the cause. Just my 2 cents... -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
