3 ms·

>I'd prefer it to be a separate independent component [...] with a different internal architecture [...] and a separate governance Not sure I understand this,

>I'd prefer it to be a separate independent component [...] with a different internal architecture [...] and a separate governance Not sure I understand this, do you mean you would use something that had the exact same feature set, if the internal architecture was different and if someone else was maintaining it? What would be the point of that? Are there some performance or security improvements to the architecture that were suggested upstream that they aren't doing? >narrower scope Not sure I understand this either, the scope of journald is actually quite small, there are many syslog implementations that are bigger and have a lot more features.

nine_k 5y ago
Not necessarily exact same, and maybe not necessarily having the same problems (such as corruption). There is a reason that certain things have multiple implementations compatible at the level of key interfaces but different inside. Examples: cron and anacron, more, less, and bat, different NTP implementations, different syslogd implementations, to say nothing of the variety of DNS, SMTP, and HTTP servers.
- lavabiopsy 5y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean corruption, journald logs should actually fare better in terms of dealing with corruption and tampering versus text logs, if you use the log sealing feature. You could also already easily plug any of the syslog implementations in.
  - smaudet 5y ago
    Perhaps he is talking about modularity - systemd is a bit all or nothing, it is a pluggable system yes but (AFAIK) it is not modular so you can't write arbitrary software and have it adhere to some standard, instead you have to use the systemd libraries and link against systemd calls. So it is another layer on top of the kernel in that sense. The old alt was to put the shell in charge and bash or sh talked to a bunch of random programs. Which is in some ways more modular but also a bit of a nightmare... I'm not certain anything like that exists, you would have to define some data architecture almost, maybe involve hardware like ACPI and UEFI... But that goes back to nobody basing their career over how a computer boots...overly complex. Maybe better just to improve systemd instead.

nine_k 5y ago

Not necessarily exact same, and maybe not necessarily having the same problems (such as corruption). There is a reason that certain things have multiple implementations compatible at the level of key interfaces but different inside. Examples: cron and anacron, more, less, and bat, different NTP implementations, different syslogd implementations, to say nothing of the variety of DNS, SMTP, and HTTP servers.

lavabiopsy 5y ago
I'm not sure what you mean corruption, journald logs should actually fare better in terms of dealing with corruption and tampering versus text logs, if you use the log sealing feature. You could also already easily plug any of the syslog implementations in.
- smaudet 5y ago
  Perhaps he is talking about modularity - systemd is a bit all or nothing, it is a pluggable system yes but (AFAIK) it is not modular so you can't write arbitrary software and have it adhere to some standard, instead you have to use the systemd libraries and link against systemd calls. So it is another layer on top of the kernel in that sense. The old alt was to put the shell in charge and bash or sh talked to a bunch of random programs. Which is in some ways more modular but also a bit of a nightmare... I'm not certain anything like that exists, you would have to define some data architecture almost, maybe involve hardware like ACPI and UEFI... But that goes back to nobody basing their career over how a computer boots...overly complex. Maybe better just to improve systemd instead.