Let me comment:
- Is systemd a step backwards?
* upstart didn't even implement logging, did it?
* some more things I think systemd does better than upstart (eg socket
activation)
However I agree that journalctl is horribly slow.
- Must the module system or systemd go away? I don't
On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Ertugrul Söylemez ert...@gmx.de wrote:
Hi Colin,
This sounds a lot like Disnix! How would it be similar? How would it
be different?
Disnix and NixOps are machine-oriented. You have a network of machines
with configurations. The goal is a
Hi Alexander,
We can use a monoid system to construct configurations, but the socket
activation standard for example, is centered on optimizing the
activation script itself. What are your thoughts on the activation
script?
I have no concrete thoughts at this point, just throwing around
On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Ertugrul Söylemez ert...@gmx.de wrote:
Instead a lot of services can be treated as a sequence of isolated
containers, and a small set of load-balanced, mutable service entry
points. Namespace magic can make a lot of previously global state,
local, such
Hi Colin,
This sounds a lot like Disnix! How would it be similar? How would it
be different?
Disnix and NixOps are machine-oriented. You have a network of machines
with configurations. The goal is a service-oriented architecture.
Every service itself is a machine, and those machines can be
Yay! The idea is even better than I expected!
2014-12-27 4:48 GMT-02:00 Ertugrul Söylemez ert...@gmx.de:
Note that
systemd is not just an init system.
This is my first problem - systemd is a bit bloated and mysterious.
I don't like the idea of big blobs doing everything on a system. It
On Sat, Dec 27, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Ertugrul Söylemez ert...@gmx.de wrote:
I think as a first step to get rid of systemd and gain a much more
sensible services model as well we should move away from NixOS modules
for services.
The module system is made in such a way that one can build on top of
Hi all,
At Zalora, we are gradually switching to using defnix
https://github.com/zalora/defnix. It is still very much under active
development (read: may change at any time), and the underlying implementation
does use systemd, but the service/functionality interface (check out the
defnixos
On 27 December 2014 at 07:48, Ertugrul Söylemez ert...@gmx.de wrote:
One thing most of us seem to agree about [...]
Maybe that's true (I don't see a consensus on the list, only the usual
sparse FUD. I don't follow IRC) but arguments that start this way
always give me the willies.
[...] is
Hi Nicolas,
I think as a first step to get rid of systemd and gain a much more
sensible services model as well we should move away from NixOS
modules for services.
The module system is made in such a way that one can build on top of
the work of the other without having any computer
Hi there Tobias,
One thing most of us seem to agree about [...]
Maybe that's true (I don't see a consensus on the list, only the usual
sparse FUD. I don't follow IRC) but arguments that start this way
always give me the willies.
I understand why, but I'm not very good at English rhetoric.
I'll just jump in and say that if you is going to donate time to do this,
Ertugrul, then I'm all for it.
It seems like it is possible to make the service system a lot leaner,
smaller, and nicer. This is especially true when services are in
containers, or NixOS is used in docker containers.
For
Hi there Anderson,
I want to know if it's possible to use an alternate to Systemd as init
system on NixOS.
this has been asked many times now, and I'm in favour of switching to an
alternative. Unfortunately it's not easy, because a considerable
portion of NixOS currently depends on systemd,
13 matches
Mail list logo
