From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED, DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [IPv6:2600:3c01:e000:146::1]) by inbox.vuxu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F0CB2B70C for ; Sun, 16 Jun 2024 07:48:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F29F4284D; Sun, 16 Jun 2024 15:48:33 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-oi1-x22e.google.com (mail-oi1-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22e]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1101E4284C for ; Sun, 16 Jun 2024 15:48:22 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-oi1-x22e.google.com with SMTP id 5614622812f47-3d23a0a32afso1985993b6e.3 for ; Sat, 15 Jun 2024 22:48:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1718516901; x=1719121701; darn=tuhs.org; h=mime-version:message-id:date:references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to :from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=+zYytMuOE+F+NpIMe/lXhb7eiQ0ErvVNWwgfd0bcEMk=; b=KumZ+JNWgbMUzgz0hkWC9n8WoUdntPGGaXjbjmODqFt8wCkJqNqM5fArWSvhiGhnF6 RcD8gMsIGfJ/Jofw85F8IpTqPv5t3QEo9+ANQG/48cuKv/hasz4YSzMb+DGONeyfg+5J 4mVJywZjjOh3ChBoNj/7n8uSJQuaWpF3VpMopQbCk1fzpq/M/Uu1ZxwCqp9MJbj7Ozrg g0ltFzv60PY9rlw2HOUAzvPYrZ5WehB+0nuU6rqlItm/LSTsmpPdUkxNh0F+yIHN5hhh 3R14HEdgfsjiqNWqjtOkZCLoXcYkFEpTycENlQNmfUqPyl//sFHP7xIxAaWhY9Tqa/1w p51A== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1718516901; x=1719121701; h=mime-version:message-id:date:references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to :from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=+zYytMuOE+F+NpIMe/lXhb7eiQ0ErvVNWwgfd0bcEMk=; b=O8H8RkqNkJI1pqOWqTicKsaRhEEXY5yCDGkQrtBt9QVN5NIYLKvu0xYIeV7XDSe+0V bFr028sFEOlHvUWEd0GEWt16Ec8rM9dOPemmSjB/x5xxFDnv+KmJSkkpHdwyvJn+CXYc NZdVIJWUU7Hnd/2iEXnDog7rKgqSRBr42eyvzOOk8IfQ9uNQVaV+elCQAD0ifCkLDBEX yvZRJjlanhoONcTrdszxZiA/yAWE8//2sdX6umIeQqnWL/CmVbuuQ1AKcQFenA9wQJ/s +7VG3Vqjh6qlszIBL/VZynKXG62EG16KcebEDVx/invqKTy8FJVQFEYCSmoAneD2IaB/ YWkw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwxJtpmYFg0YMXodadxnxarWcD8frhpNNy2EImSKIPw4aVWF4j9 atX8TW5PPupKgAp80n60i1YAwKrrY7bvXE/HgAh+G3kjFdS+yI/7 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IH0LXqgWcMVz2Xf67fXUFka/DksWS+JlgolCNTto0HVfcAgkwgoa+GlaC6GyE2ztnhNUMMmaA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:1b26:b0:3d2:1bb6:88df with SMTP id 5614622812f47-3d24e8ce364mr7530463b6e.14.1718516899105; Sat, 15 Jun 2024 22:48:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([203.221.118.228]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 41be03b00d2f7-6fedf2a74dcsm4902110a12.46.2024.06.15.22.48.17 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sat, 15 Jun 2024 22:48:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Alexis To: Grant Taylor In-Reply-To: (Grant Taylor via TUHS's message of "Fri, 14 Jun 2024 09:17:38 -0500") References: <73819d1a-395a-4b74-a20c-0123fbed56bd@technologists.com> Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2024 15:48:15 +1000 Message-ID: <87msnl4ew0.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID-Hash: 4ZFANMEMR3CQRQVMFLNCE7KRKCGKVG4I X-Message-ID-Hash: 4ZFANMEMR3CQRQVMFLNCE7KRKCGKVG4I X-MailFrom: flexibeast@gmail.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: The Unix Heritage Society X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.6b1 Precedence: list Subject: [TUHS] Re: Version 256 of systemd boasts '42% less Unix philosophy' The Register List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Grant Taylor via TUHS writes: > I'm anti-systemd *cough*Master Control Program*cough* and it's > associated suite of utilities for many reasons. But I've come > to > accept that systemd is not just an init system. It's role of a > service life cycle manager is a superset of what an init system > does. > It's a relatively new world (at least comparatively). Indeed: it doesn't just do init, but also _service supervision_ (making sure that a service that _should_ be up, _is_ up) and _service management_ (enabling, disabling, starting, stopping, dependencies, etc.). Hence why phrases like "the init wars" are such a misnomer. As described in the potted history outlined in the "known problems with System 5 rc" article i linked to upthread, Sys V rc's issues with service supervision and service management have been known for decades: > In 1999, Luke Mewburn worked on replacing the /etc/rc system in > NetBSD. netbsd.tech.userlevel mailing list discussions from the > time show several criticisms of the System 5 rc and System 5 > init systems, and encouragement not to repeat their mistakes in > the BSD world. The resultant rc.d system was roughly > contemporary with Daniel Robbins producing OpenRC, another > System 5 rc replacement that replaced the (Bourne/Bourne Again) > shell with a different script interpreter, nowadays named > /sbin/openrc, that provided a whole lot of standard service > management functionality as pre-supplied functions. The NetBSD > rc.d system likewise reduced rc.d scripts to a few variable > assignments and function calls (in about two thirds of cases). The initial release of OpenRC - still Gentoo's 'native' system for service management - was in April 2007; the initial release of systemd was in March 2010. But although both OpenRC and systemd address various pain points of Sys V rc on Linux, systemd has _also_ had the backing of an 800-pound gorilla in the Linux world - Red Hat - which has _implicitly_ forced its adoption over alternatives by distros that don't have the same level of resources behind them. Here's an excerpt from something i wrote on the Gentoo forum back in April: > There's been so much anger and vitriol expressed about > systemd. Has that significantly slowed the systemd juggernaut? > Not really. Not least because, as in the case of D-Bus, and as > in the case of Wayland, it addresses very real issues for > significant numbers of people. > > For example: unlike on, say, OpenBSD, which has developed a > pretty clean shell-script-based service management system, with > a 'standard library' in the form of rc.subr(8), the situation on > Linux was a mess. Many of the (usually volunteers) who maintain > packages for Linux don't want to have to learn the complexities > of shell scripting and the subtle issues that can arise, or > develop and maintain workarounds for race conditions, and so > on. systemd comes along and says: "Hey, with systemd, you'll be > able to write service definitions declaratively; you won't need > to wrangle shell scripts." That's a pretty attractive > proposition to a number of package maintainers, and in the > absence of systemd alternatives explicitly providing such an > interface - not just saying "oh that could be done on our > alternative" - those maintainers are going to be inclined > towards systemd, regardless of what design and implementation > issues are involved in systemd's approach. > > So in wanting to try to ensure that myself and others have > choices and alternatives available, i feel that ranting against > the incoming tide, like a tech King Cnut, is typically far less > effective than actually putting in the work to develop and > support those choices and alternatives. Alexis.