On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 09:30:50AM -0500, Daniel Taylor wrote: [cut]
> > c) where and how would you draw the line indicating what's unacceptable > > about > > systemd - in other words, what exactly do you mean by "the Unix paradigm" in > > your comment above? > Split out the PID 1 stuff to just the bare minimum of what needs to be > there, organize everything else into appropriate units. > > This is not a trivial project, which is why nobody has taken it on AFAIK, > but systemd must be doing something that package maintainers and developers > want. That suggests that the way to beat them is to do that, only better. The problem is exactly there: you don't really need systemd if you just need a reliable PID 1. What appeals systemd's enthusiasts is the process supervision and management system. Which is probably 90% of the reason why systemd needed to fagocitate the whole low-level user-space (please remember that the only way to reliably know that a process is dead under unix is to be the parent of that process....). I know the issue looks easy and straightforward on the surface. But when you start looking into it seriously, you quickly realise that things are not as straightforward as you thought ;) My2Cents KatolaZ -- [ ~.,_ Enzo Nicosia aka KatolaZ - Devuan -- Freaknet Medialab ] [ "+. katolaz [at] freaknet.org --- katolaz [at] yahoo.it ] [ @) http://kalos.mine.nu --- Devuan GNU + Linux User ] [ @@) http://maths.qmul.ac.uk/~vnicosia -- GPG: 0B5F062F ] [ (@@@) Twitter: @KatolaZ - skype: katolaz -- github: KatolaZ ]
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Dng mailing list [email protected] https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
