[kwlug-disc] What is all this about systemd?

[Khalid Baheyeldin]

On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 1:24 PM, Hubert Chathi <hubert at uhoreg.ca> wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 12:14:41 -0400, Khalid Baheyeldin <kb at 2bits.com> said:
>
>> This is what he said:
>
>> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5852295&cid=48188823
>
>> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=5852295&cid=48188887
>
> I saw those, and they don't seem to be referring to Debian's
> governance.  While some of the "policy wonks" that he refers to may be
> part of Debian's governance, I don't see him as talking about a problem
> with Debian's governance itself.
>
> And his second message specifically denies that he's talking about the
> systemd people (if you look at the parent message), and if I had to
> guess based solely on those posts, his comment about "making [Debian] a
> whore to Ubuntu" could be taken as an indication that he is talking
> about the upstart people, despite him saying that he is beginning to be
> wary of systemd.

I did not say he said something about Poetterring et al, if that is
what you understood.

He was saying that Debian is the one that has management issues
(alluding to the WAY that systemd was adopted in Debian).

And saying that if it forks, he will check if the certain people
managing it will go with Debian proper, or the fork and he (Bruce)
will go the other way.

>
>>>> Something like UselessD takes what is good from systemd and removes
>>>> what is bad.
>>>
>>>> http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/
>>>
>>> Yeah, I'm interested in seeing how some of the new init systems turn
>>> out.  nosh is another one I'm interested in.
>>> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jonathan.deboynepollard/Softwares/nosh.html
>
>> The proper way is to have an init standard. An API for how daemons are
>> started up, manage dependencies, and perhaps the syntax of config
>> files (e.g. yaml or ini).
>
>> Then implementation is up to the individual init systems, as long as
>> they stick to the API and configuration file format.
>
>> This has to be done in a way where daemons themselves do not require
>> major surgery to implement that API. Rather an intermediate wrapper
>> would do it, be it shell scripts, or upstart or system.
>
>> This way, something like systemd can be easily swapped for something
>> else.
>
>> Wishful thinking, I know ...
>
> Pretty much every init system has some sort of compatibility for sysv
> init scripts.  If systemd becomes the dominant init system and everyone
> writes unit files instead of init scripts, I'm sure that most of the
> other init systems will grow the ability to parse unit files (or
> whatever system becomes the de facto standard), at least to some degree.
> So I don't think that it's wishful thinking, although it might take a
> while to fully materialize.

UselessD does that today, and ignores what is bad about systemd, yet
adopts what is good in it.

If Debian/Ubuntu treat "moderninit" as a virtual package, and systemd
or uselessd as ones that provide "moderninit", then many will be
happy, and the issue goes away. Perhaps not for Gnome, and a few other
things, but that is a solution that would satisfy a large segment of
objectors.


-- 
Khalid M. Baheyeldin
2bits.com, Inc.
Fast Reliable Drupal
Drupal optimization, development, customization and consulting.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. --  Edsger W.Dijkstra
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. --   Leonardo da Vinci
For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple,
and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken