On 02/10/2014 01:27 PM, Gregory H. Nietsky wrote: > > On 02/10/14 14:04, Fernando de Oliveira wrote: >> I thought it would be worth sharing what I have just read. Perhaps not >> everybody knows about it yet. >> >> 1. Debian votes for systemd >> >> https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/02/msg00338.html >> > as much as i think systemd is a stinking pile ... for debian [read > ubuntu if you want by extension ignore they use upstart] it makes sense > for the non technical consumer. > > in my corner of the world ubuntu is rolled out at one of the major banks > [1 of 4] and they basically use firefox for everything maybe some libre > office ... the same bank uses asterisk voip server. and for these > systems its probably the way to go. same applys to daughters school 100% > ubuntu. ubuntu is a firm favorite here and at one stage i was neighbours > with M. Shuttleworths brother Grant other distros rarely feature. > > for use on a server or on embeded / .... systems its a bad call and i > worry that it could cause problems that will be blamed on "linux" and > not pid 0 .... >
Actually, people rather prefer systemd for embedded since as you know embedded hardware isn't that much powerful as the server or desktop machines (any architecture). Systemd uses pure C code instead of shell scripts for most of the tasks, so it's a win in preformance and memory/cpu usage as well for them and it *really matters*. You can disable lots of things and optimize it for low-end hardware. I believe it was some car company that used systemd in their embedded software but I might be wrong. As for servers, I personally find it way easier to use and maintain servers that come with systemd unlike the ones that come with sysVinit/upstart/whatever. If you watched the video I posted few days ago, Lennart did mention that there's a learning curve and if you got used to sysvinit you *need* to learn systemd commands and such. Of course, those who spend years/decades using shell will say that shell is easy, blah blah, etc, but for beginners (<- note: beginners, newbies, no knowledge or very limited one about shell) systemd is rather waaay easy to use and to understand. Learning curve is there, but if you are at the beginnings, it's rather way easier to learn systemd instead of shell. Of course, for some tasks you'll still need shell, but mostly there's software for common things that are being done on servers. Do note that not every server needs/requires some special treatment, but there are actually lot of them that do. If you think systemd is bad choice for servers, think again. Red Hat Enterprise Linux, who's more focused on servers than on desktops is shipping with systemd for RHEL 7.0 and they wouldn't do it if it was *that bad* as people say it is. openSUSE is also using it, so it shouldn't be surprising if SLES and SLED begin to use it, too. > for those who are not sure or would like to try something to see what > will happen if systemd failed in any way type "kill -9 0" as root. > > Greg > Really? Have you actually tried it for *any* init system? The PID 0 seems to be protected from sigkill and sigterm from userspace and you can't kill it that way. Any other non-standard way to terminate the process would cause kernel panic anyways, be it systemd, sysvinit, openrc, upstart, etc. -- Note: My last name is not Krejzi. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
