From 90b12bd71bb9fc79a4640b9112c13ef529d0196a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Laurent Bercot Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2014 22:26:11 +0000 Subject: Initial commit --- doc/systemd.html | 120 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 120 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/systemd.html (limited to 'doc/systemd.html') diff --git a/doc/systemd.html b/doc/systemd.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..49ba2aa --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/systemd.html @@ -0,0 +1,120 @@ + + + + + s6: a word about systemd + + + + + + +

+s6
+Software
+skarnet.org +

+ +

A word about systemd

+ +

+ systemd +is becoming de facto a standard init system for Linux. But even +this choice of words is treacherous, because systemd is much more than +an init system. It's basically an integrated redesign of all the low-level +userspace of a Linux system, with great plans to change how software is +run and organized. + +

+ Which is not a bad thing per se: Unix software can definitely benefit +from improvements in this area, and the s6 suite, among other software, +comes from the same assessment and ultimately has the same goal. But +systemd suffers from a single conception flaw that sets it apart from +the other initiatives, and that has both political and technical +repercussions. +

+ +

+ + The single, overarching problem with systemd is that it attempts, in every +possible way, to do more instead of less. + +

+ +

The political issue

+ +

+ systemd attempts to cover more ground instead of less. +In other words, rather than simply being an init system, it tries to be +a complete overhaul of the way a Linux system is run, and tries to force +other software to hook with it in order to be supported. This goes very +much against: +

+ + + +

+ The reason why systemd has become so prevalent is not that it has been +accepted by the community. It's that it has manpower. It is backed up by +open source software companies that can provide much more manpower than +developers like myself working on free software on their own time. The +distribution model of systemd, made of lobbying and bullying, is much more +akin to the distribution model of Microsoft Windows than the one of GNU/Linux. +

+ +

+ Which says something. +

+ +

The technical issue

+ +

+ Software that does more instead of less is, simply put, +badly designed software. Trying to come up with an all-encompassing solution +is always a sign of developer hubris and inexperience, and never a sign of +good engineering. Ever. Remember sendmail, BIND, INN, and, definitely a better +analogy, the early days of Microsoft Windows ? Yes, systemd is in +exactly the same league. It's as if we had learned nothing from the +mistakes of the past 20 years. Technically as well as politically, systemd +is actually very close to Windows; is that the future we want for Linux +machines ? +

+ +

+ Doing more instead of less is bad, and it's especially true in the case of +system software, i.e. low-level software that +aims to make the machine work and that application software depends upon. +The goal of an operating system is to make it possible to run applications, +and system software should always partake in that goal. System software +should stay the heck out of the way, and systemd is big, loud and +obnoxious. Embedded devices are common, and will become even more common in +the future; that is a market that systemd will have trouble breaking into, because +it's a lot more complex than embedded devices need. And that, too, says something: +if a software suite is too complex for an embedded device, maybe it's just too +complex, period. +

+ +

Links

+ + + + + -- cgit v1.3.1