On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 10:20 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Mon, 13.06.11 22:46, Denys Vlasenko (dvlasenk(a)redhat.com) wrote:
> Slide 6:
> "We can now boot a system shell-free"
>
> IOW: shell is bad, my new shiny toy is good.
Oh god. If you had listened you'd have understood that my aim is to
deemphasize shell in the boot process
You go quite farther than that.
"We can now boot a system shell-free". *Shell-free*.
You are not saying "driving boot process by shell scripts is slow
because ... ... ..." (an argument I would agree with), you are
aiming at *eliminating* shell scripts from boot process.
> Slide 14:
> "systemd is an Init System"
> "systemd is a Platform"
>
> systemd is a platform? Really? What next? systemd is an Aircraft
> Carrier?
That is not a technical argument, but just FUDing.
No, it is a technical argument. I am saying that this is not how things
are supposed to be done in Unix. I am saying that you are trying to
incorporate as much stuff as possible into systemd, and I think it's
wrong. You don't like me saying this? Well, not a surprise.
I also don't like when people tell me that I'm wrong.
> Slide 50:
> "Shell is evil"
> "Move to systemd, daemons, kernel, udev, ..."
>
> Again, shell, a tool which endured for 40+ years, is suddenly "evil".
> I don't think this being the consensus.
Yeah, it's not the right tool for the boot process. Doesn't mean it
wasn't useful for interactive use or for scripting. Just not the right
tool for the boot process. Since you seem to have trouble understanding
that, let me repeat it a couple of times: shell is not the best tool to
accomplish a quick and reliable bootup.
Can shell play a part in the boot process, or is it now completely
banished? I don't know, is something like this acceptable in the new
world of systemd?
ulimit -d $((16*1024*1024))
exec my_favorite_program some_opts
> Slide 79:
> "Substantial coverage of basic OS boot-up tasks, including fsck,
> mount, quota, hwclock, readahead, tmpfiles, random-seed, console,
> static module loading, early syslog, plymouth, shutdown, kexec,
> SELinux, initrd+initrd-less boots, cryptsetup, ..."
>
> That's what I refer to by "taking over the world".
Well, I just refer to that as "systemd as a platform for building an OS from".
> Note that neither slides, nor this email thread produced an explanation
> WHY all this stuff is thrown together into one project.
In fact those slides you refer to explain all that. If you don't listen
and don't want to read, then I cannot help you. One last try with
different words, nonetheless: simplicity, speed, robustness,
compactness, functionality.
Good that you don't include "modularity" any more. At least one of my
arguments reached through, it seems.
Let's take a look at each of them:
simplicity - I don't see it
speed - yes
robustness - actually yes, your code seems to be good in that area
compactness - no
functionality - too much of it. I'd call it bloat
I would also add "monolithic and inflexible". Sorry.
--
vda