You missed the point. This is a joke. Rod was making a joke by pointing out how F****** retarded these people are.
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012, at 02:21 AM, Andres Perera wrote: > On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 1:55 AM, Rod Whitworth <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 20:49:37 -0600, Amit Kulkarni wrote: > > > >>https://lwn.net/Articles/524606/ > >> > >>don't have a subscription but for those who do, enjoy. > >> > > > > But http://lwn.net/Articles/524920/ will give you the idea without $$$ > > "rleigh, it's really not as easy as you think. Making the event loop > portable to kqueue is complex, but doable, I can agree to that. -- But > the trouble starts beyond that. The BSDs don't have anything like > cgroups. *There's no way to attach a name to a group of processes, in > a hierarchal, secure way*. And you cannot emulate this. (And no, don't > say "BSD jail" now, because that is something very different). But > this already is at the very core of systemd. It's how systemd tracks > services." > > how can someone write this and not explain why a process managing > pgroups can't achieve the same results? > > pgroups is going to be the first alternative for someone instinctively > looking for a portable alternative, so i'm genuinely interested in > knowing why they've discarded the idea > > i am, however, aware of differences *unrelated* to writing a systemd > like appliance. pgroups do not provide per item hostname and other > virtualization facilities in freebsd jails/linux cgroups, but what > about *relevant* differences? something weak like "the index for for > cgroups is wide enough to fit an UUID"? in other words, something that > *doesn't* require a completely new api?
