On Sunday 16 Feb 2014 16:50:26 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > On Sun, Feb 16, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Tanstaafl <tansta...@libertytrek.org> wrote: > > On 2014-02-15 3:32 PM, Canek Peláez Valdés <can...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> For Slackware, I have no idea. For Debian, no the only options were[1]: > >> > >> 1. sysvinit (status quo) > >> 2. systemd > >> 3. upstart > >> 4. openrc (experimental) > >> 5. One system on Linux, something else on non-linux > >> 6. multiple > >> > >> It should also be noted that no one in the TC voted OpenRC above > >> systemd AND upstart, and that while a couple voted systemd below > >> everything else, it can be argued that it was a tactical vote. > >> > >> Regards. > >> > >> [1]https://wiki.debian.org/Debate/initsystem/ > > > > I would really, really, REALLY like to see a thorough, civil debate > > involving those far more knowledgeable than I on the pros and cons of > > systemd vs OpenRC... > > Well, that's the pickle, isn't it? We have the usual stuff: > > • OpenRC wasn't able (until very recently) to properly do parallel > execution of daemons. There will be someone who will say "that isn't > important". > > • Then there is the inability of OpenRC to properly stop/monitor > daemons (everybody here had to use "/etc/init.d/daemon zap" at some > point, I suppose). Someone will say that there is experimental cgroups > support for OpenRC... "experimental" being the important word, and > there is also the little matter of that not being integrated into the > official package (AFAIU). Also, with that OpenRC loses the "advantage" > of being portable to FreeBSD and/or Hurd. > > • And of course, OpenRC is slow as hell compared to systemd (although > there are reports of being really fast using reentrant busybox... I > never used that way, so I don't know). Which again, someone will say > that "that doesn't matter because I never reboot my machine". Great. > > But then we have the whole load of features that systemd provides that > no other init system does (OpenRC included). That is an advantage if > you believe that having an standardized plumbing in all "mainstream" > Linux distributions has technical merit and is a good design. If you > believe so (like I and many others do), then systemd is several orders > of magnitude better than OpenRC. If you don't believe so (like many... > although apparently they are less and less as time goes by), then > systemd is the spawn of the devil and it should be killed with fire. > > For General Purpose Linux distributions, systemd is a godsend since it > solves and centralizes a lot of stuff that matters to a lot of people. > It's fast and small (if you remove the optional dependencies), so the > embedded guys like it. It offers (for the first time ever) proper > daemon control and management and O(log n) access logs, so the server > guys like it. And if offers proper session monitoring and seat > control, so the desktop guys like it too. > > But all those advantages only will be so, if you agree with having a > tightly integrated plumbing interface directly above the kernel and > below PAM and/or X (soon Wayland) sessions. It gets kind of > philosophical, which is why a lot of people taunts the fuzzy term > "UNIX philosophy" so much when they rave against systemd. > > > As it seems to me, the Debian OpenRC page says that the cons are not > > nearly as large as the systemd proponents would have us believe. > > > > https://wiki.debian.org/Debate/initsystem/openrc > > It's because they are cons only if you agree with systemd's view of the > world. > > I do.
I think what people primarily object to is not the parts that systemd does well or does better than other init process start up systems. The main objection from what I understand is the removal of choice that systemd developers have forced upon users, by making certain architectural decisions. These are decisions which may look optimal for RHL, but appear to be less so for the rest of the *nix ecosystem given the objections to systemd across the populace. For some Gentoo users in particular, removing the choice of running /usr on a separate partition (without *forcing* the use of initramfs) created the first pain point, or wakeup call. Many complaints were posted on this M/L, centering on this removal of choice. Unlike binary distros Gentoo is all about choice, so the complaints were perhaps louder than elsewhere. People speaking of *nix design philosophy are not necessarily having a rant, but can be legitimately concerned that architectural decisions to hardwire systemd into Linux will remove choice from its wider user base. I am similarly concerned that a monoculture has less success of survival. The fact that Debian decided to embrace the systemd option will no doubt have an impact on what Gentoo follows. I am not educated in init start up systems to know why other options were not considered as part of the Debian debate. Is it that runit, or epoch or what- else are not even close in terms of functionality, versatility and choice? Framing a question can narrow the answers. I hope that whatever the Gentoo decision may be one day, it will not irreversibly remove choice from us Gentoo-ers. -- Regards, Mick
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
