5 ms·
I think the key word there is desktop. The systemd folks are desktop folks first and foremost, server operations be damned. coredumpctl requires root access, wh
by Sanddancer 11y ago
I think the key word there is desktop. The systemd folks are desktop folks first and foremost, server operations be damned. coredumpctl requires root access, which means one has to be much more diligent in scripting automatic actions to handle core dumps. Failed services again are something that any supervisor service can handle and report -- launchd can get all that information from launchctl. Rootless X is something OpenBSD has had for years, through better access control than linux devs seem to be able to be bothered with.
The biggest problem with systemd is its mediocrity. The journal is an interesting idea, but it's inflexible. Its insistence on json and internal formats mean that it doesn't work with the rest of the extant logging infrastructure tools that exist, so if you want to have a dedicated log server, you have to run essentially two syslogds. Its core dump misfeatures make it harder to use extant access control features to manage files. Its unit files don't allow for any sort of extensibility, so adding things like a configtest command for a unit are impossible. In short, its oversimplified itself to the point where it adds a huge management load just to keep servers where they were.
- digi_owl 11y ago> server operations be damned. I think it depends somewhat on how one define server. The traditional hardware on shelf doing their designated task (i have seen it be referred to as "pet" servers) not so much, no. But they do seem to heavily support container and virtual machine based servers ("cattle", to go with the pet reference earlier).