Peter Ross wrote:
From: "Steve Roylance" <roylance@corplink.com.au>
from G+ this morning -------------------------------- Lennart Poettering Shared publicly - 04:39
German language source code comments are not acceptable in the +systemd source tree, according to our coding style conventions. In preparation for merging LibreOffice into systemd I have thus started translating a few of their source code comments from German into English. --------------------------------
Maybe we all got it wrong ans systemd is a distribution slightly more religiously motivated than others
and not an init replacement.
The idea behind process supervision is not a bad one as such: --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_supervision Benefits[1] compared to traditional process launchers and system boot mechanisms, like System V init, include: - Ability to restart services which have failed - The fact that it does not require the use of "pidfiles" - Clean process state - Reliable logging, because the master process can capture the stdout/stderr of the service process and route it to a log - Faster (concurrent) and ability to start up and stop --- They all make sense. The init process has some tools in place to aide it but it is true: You rely on the quality of init scripts and started tools. E.g. the ability to log to syslog. Here from http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html --- Myth: systemd is a feature creep. Well, systemd certainly covers more ground that it used to. It's not just an init system anymore, but the basic userspace building block to build an OS from, but we carefully make sure to keep most of the features optional. You can turn a lot off at compile time, and even more at runtime. Thus you can choose freely how much feature creeping you want. --- The question here is: Why do they make some functions part of the package in the first place? It reminds me of some consultants recently: "You want our software on Linux? Okay, choose Oracle as a DB. We can help you with the licensing etc." After signing the contract: "No, do not use Linux. We rather like it all with MS SQL Server because we are used to it. So, you have two very different server systems then? Well, just replace all your Linux/Unix machines with MS Windows Server and you are fine." The approach fosters the belief that you may have a hard time to choose in the future because the people responsible for a critical part of the software may have a "my way or the highway" attitude at heart which makes it difficult to deal with. Regards Peter