3 ms·
There's nothing stopping you from writing a drop-in systemd replacement in Rust or something that's easier to write safe code for.
by astrodust 10y ago
There's nothing stopping you from writing a drop-in systemd replacement in Rust or something that's easier to write safe code for.
- thinkpad20 10y agoI would love for such a thing (and have thought about doing it myself). But as systemd's capabilities grow more and more expansive, and with its lack of modularity, it becomes harder and harder to write a replacement for it. Of course, even replacing only a piece of systemd's functionality (for example its process manager) would still be beneficial, but systemd would continue to be the only real choice for many.
- astrodust 10y agoThe way you overthrow an overlord you no longer like is by knuckling down, working hard, kicking out a replacement. This is how LibreSSL came around (http://libressl.org http://libressl.org). There's nothing especially wrong with the idea of systemd or the way it's been deployed, but if the code-base is suffering from neglect one way to fix that is to either support the core team, or barring that due to hostility, fork and/or make a work-alike.
- anonbanker 10y agowe don't want a work-alike. systemd is not necessary, as all the shims for other platforms will attest.
- astrodust 10y agoYou don't. Other people want systemd to work, to be improved, and to move things forward.
- evilDagmar 10y agoI would suggest that simple common sense might prevent such a thing. It's not without reason that the older, wider heads always kept initd simple, in part to prevent it becoming an unnavigable monstrosity. The very idea of the "legacy" init implementations creating files, let alone suid root files, is laughable.
- astrodust 10y ago"Simple" and "systemd" are two things that really don't belong in the same room. While sysvinit had a lot of short-comings, at least it was simple.