What flavor of Linux currently doesn't use systemd? On Sep 30, 2016 11:58, "Joseph Sinclair" <plug-discuss...@stcaz.net> wrote:
> Responses Inline: > > > [snip] > > > >> SystemD should be restricted to it's INIT > >> functions, dump the horrible non-standard logging, drop all of the > >> service replacements (or spin them into separate services), and get > >> laser-focused on getting that INIT service bullet-proof, > > > > But if systemd were restricted to PID1 plus a process starter, what > > would differentiate it from very nice INITs like runit, s6, and Epoch? > > Quality code, simple design, and/or security could differentiate. > If none of those applies, then the community should choose the alternative > that does offer those things. > In my opinion, systemd does have some very good features in it's core > function space, it just has some major implementation and kitchen-sink > issues that need to be fixed. > > > [snip] > > > >> I think the entire RedHat organization (and the professional > >> open-source community in general) might need a refresher course on > >> operating system design, particularly focusing on microkernel > >> architectures and the how/why those are inherently more secure (also > >> why the tradeoffs involved don't work as well in Ring-0 kernel space > >> as they do in Ring-3 user space). > > > > This would be counterproductive for Redhat. Please remember they make > > their money on consulting, certs and education: Three services that > > lose value as the underlying system becomes easier to use and > > comprehend. Read > > http://asay.blogspot.ru/2006/10/interview-with-red-hat-cto-brian.html > > and search for the first occurrence of the word "complexity" and you'll > > hear, straight from the horse's mouth, why they'll never make systemd a > > simple PID1 plus process runner. > > I am well aware that the corporate incentive militates against doing > what's best in the case of systemd. > There is nothing, however, that requires systemd be exclusively or even > significantly driven by Red Hat, the community is completely free to fork > and fix the project. > The Linux community (of which Red Hat is only a small part) has a > responsibility to itself to reject or repair overly complex and insecure > solutions to the needs of a modern operating system. > There are already projects underway in various places that begin to > address these concerns, and the natural self-interest of the community will > tend to bring those to the forefront, absent external interference. > Red Hat will, eventually, either recognize the constraint (do what's best > for the community or the community will go elsewhere) or cease to exist; > both outcomes are eminently reasonable and beneficial. > > I have no desire to tell Red Hat how to run their business, and they > shouldn't listen to me if I did. > The quoted paragraph is more of a recognition of a common technology > blindspot that happens to manifest in Red Hat's organization (and applies > to the systemd design issues) than a prescription for action. > > Note, I don't pretend to have the time or skill to fix systemd either. I > just made some observations that, if it's bad enough (and it might be), > there could be enough interested entities who do have time and skill to fix > the problem. > > > > > SteveT > > > > ==Joseph++ > > > > --------------------------------------------------- > PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: > http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss >
--------------------------------------------------- PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
