3 ms·

> There are several dozen binaries in a systemd package. That's not what modular means. Can you use only parts of systemd if you wanted to? Can I e.g. use the

by mfukar 10y ago

> There are several dozen binaries in a systemd package. That's not what modular means. Can you use only parts of systemd if you wanted to? Can I e.g. use the very useful dependency-based service initialisation but keeping my log facilities and networking management intact?

SwellJoe 10y ago
"Can you use only parts of systemd if you wanted to?" Yes, though most distributions have chosen to use more than just the init functionality. "Can I e.g. use the very useful dependency-based service initialisation but keeping my log facilities and networking management intact?" No (logs) and yes (networking). Logging from systemd components, as far as I know, have to go through journald, but journald can send it as plain text to syslog, if you want it to. So, kinda yes on that one, too. networkd didn't even exist yet when many people began using systemd for their init, and it is entirely possible to use other methods of managing your network services. RHEL still, AFAIK, has a hybrid model that keeps a lot of the old configuration files even though they have switched to systemd for a lot of stuff. Maybe it uses networkd on the backend; I haven't needed to find out, as the config files work the same way they always have. I think the confusion comes from the fact that very few people want to only use one component of systemd. Even though you can, there is value in all of the pieces working well together and providing a consistent interface and API. Most distros that switch, choose to switch a lot of things over at the same time, because it's just nicer to do so, not because they had to. And, the people who hate systemd don't want any of it, so they never learn enough to know that they probably could get the bits from it they want without being tied to all of it.
- mfukar 10y ago
  There is value in only some of the pieces working together, too. I'm sure having all the pieces together makes sense for some setups, but not all.

by mfukar 10y ago

SwellJoe 10y ago

"Can you use only parts of systemd if you wanted to?" Yes, though most distributions have chosen to use more than just the init functionality. "Can I e.g. use the very useful dependency-based service initialisation but keeping my log facilities and networking management intact?" No (logs) and yes (networking). Logging from systemd components, as far as I know, have to go through journald, but journald can send it as plain text to syslog, if you want it to. So, kinda yes on that one, too. networkd didn't even exist yet when many people began using systemd for their init, and it is entirely possible to use other methods of managing your network services. RHEL still, AFAIK, has a hybrid model that keeps a lot of the old configuration files even though they have switched to systemd for a lot of stuff. Maybe it uses networkd on the backend; I haven't needed to find out, as the config files work the same way they always have. I think the confusion comes from the fact that very few people want to only use one component of systemd. Even though you can, there is value in all of the pieces working well together and providing a consistent interface and API. Most distros that switch, choose to switch a lot of things over at the same time, because it's just nicer to do so, not because they had to. And, the people who hate systemd don't want any of it, so they never learn enough to know that they probably could get the bits from it they want without being tied to all of it.

mfukar 10y ago
There is value in only some of the pieces working together, too. I'm sure having all the pieces together makes sense for some setups, but not all.