+1 On Sun, Jun 14, 2015, 1:06 PM David Sommerseth < sl+us...@lists.topphemmelig.net> wrote:
> On 14 June 2015 16:01:44 CEST, Steven Haigh <net...@crc.id.au> wrote: > >On Sun, 14 Jun 2015 09:11:38 AM Steven Miano wrote: > >> In FC22 there is cockpit though, which does have a very nice WUI (Web > >User > >> Interface) for systemctl: > >> > >> Here are a couple of screenshots for those features (cockpit has a > >> multitude of other great functionality as well though, including > >being able > >> to add additional hosts to any cockpit-ws). > >> > >> Services (Target): http://i.imgur.com/TGkHHYf.png > >> > >> Services (Target (abrt-ccpp.service): http://i.imgur.com/WhQaFPS.png > > > >Its times like this that I question what the hell we are doing in > >computing. > >We have a init system that is that complex, it has a web interface (!) > >written > >around it. What. The. Hell. > > > >That is a complete web server, with toolstack, to help configure simply > > > >starting a computer. > > > >Have we lost the plot with regards to OS concepts these days? > > > Okay, I'll bite. > > That's also an angle to see this. I rather choose to see cockpit as a > completely different project solving issues this project have considered > worth solving. And it is possible through systemd's dbus API. Cockpit is > basically just an web interface for dbus. It doesn't do anything else than > to do dbus calls. > > And I consider that impressive. Why? Because if you don't like systemctl > or Cockpit, you can write your own tools using the same dbus API. And the > bonus is that it (in theory at least) should work out of the box on any > systemd based distribution without any changes. You can write your own > management tools simplifying processes unique to your environment. > > Cockpit is a pretty good demonstration of the powers of systemd, which > also through the dbus API ensures operations a user requests are authorized > properly. A user lacking privileges will not be able to perform the > requested operations. > > So feel free to rant about the complexity of systemd. After having played > around with systemd in a few of Fedora releases, SL7 and RHEL7, I cannot > agree that systemd is such a complex beast, not in any way. It is not > worse than than upstart nor the older sysv init scripts. I honestly think > that these anti-systemd rants are pure trash from people who have no > interest in seeing that there are parts of the Linux universe which are in > desperate need for improvements: System Management. And if systemd+cockpit > can in a longer run make Linux systems more understandable for old school > Windows-admins, then just that is a big win in my opinion. > > Another point of view: Ditching sysv init isn't a new thing. Upstart is > another approach which is in SL6 and RHEL6. In other OSes, Solaris went > for SMF, Mac OSX chose launchd. Sysv init worked wonderfully in the 70s, > 80s and most of 90s, because the server needs where quite different back > then. Nowadays systems live in a far more dynamic environments than > earlier. And new challenges needs solutions appropriate to these new > demands. Otherwise we would still on a daily basis drive around in T-Fords. > > -- > kind regards, > > David Sommerseth >
