3 ms·

>systemd has long stopped being just an init system. I think that this has always been the core criticism of anyone who objects to them. Besides systemd, the i

>systemd has long stopped being just an init system. I think that this has always been the core criticism of anyone who objects to them. Besides systemd, the init system, just being very poorly thought out.

dale_glass 3y ago
What's poorly thought out about the init system? It's not perfect for sure, but on the whole I don't have any issues with it.
- constantcrying 3y ago
  How much time have you spent writing and debugging systemd init files?
  - dale_glass 3y ago
    I've written a fair amount. Nothing much to debug in most of them.
    - constantcrying 3y ago
      Riddle me this: can I create new mount files inside a systemd unit and have them activated to mount the locations specified? Do I need a daemon reload, for this?
      - dale_glass 3y ago
        That sounds like a job for systemd.generator. I don't think having an unit that generates units at runtime is an officially supported use case, since generators exist.
        constantcrying 3y ago
        This doesn't answer the question. Also generators are started very early, before other units have been started, so if your system is already running and now you want to generate those units, depending on the state of the other units, they don't really help. >I don't think having an unit that generates units at runtime is an officially supported use case Are you sure? Can you tell me how I would find out?
        dale_glass 3y ago
        > This doesn't answer the question. Also generators are started very early, before other units have been started, so if your system is already running and now you want to generate those units, depending on the state of the other units, they don't really help. That's the point. Any situation in which you have a system modify itself at runtime is a recipe for a headache. So you do your auto-generation first, then work from a stable state. > Are you sure? Can you tell me how I would find out? Aside from that this kind of recursion seems like a great way to get weird problems, and that generators exist for this exact thing, the whole design of systemd discourages this kind of trickery. Units are just supposed to start a command and little else. Maybe somebody made an official pronouncement on this somewhere, but my personal take on this kind of thing is that it's a bad idea, anywhere, not just systemd.
        constantcrying 3y ago
        >So you do your auto-generation first, then work from a stable state. You can't do auto generation if that generation depends on the output of some units. Generators can not solve that problem. >Units are just supposed to start a command and little else. What a bizarre thing to say. No, that is not just what units are for. I think you are severely misinformed about what systemd is. Units are supposed to take care of ordering accept IPC, define how to handle failures and manage devices. That comment alone makes me believe that you just do not know what you are talking about at all. It completely misses why systemd is designed the way it is and what it tries to accomplish.
        dale_glass 3y ago
      - Spivak 3y ago
        Yes you need a daemon reload to discover the new unit files. Is there in issue with doing this? A reload means reread its config, it's not a reexec.

dale_glass 3y ago

What's poorly thought out about the init system? It's not perfect for sure, but on the whole I don't have any issues with it.

constantcrying 3y ago
How much time have you spent writing and debugging systemd init files?
- dale_glass 3y ago
  I've written a fair amount. Nothing much to debug in most of them.
  - constantcrying 3y ago
    Riddle me this: can I create new mount files inside a systemd unit and have them activated to mount the locations specified? Do I need a daemon reload, for this?
    - dale_glass 3y ago
      That sounds like a job for systemd.generator. I don't think having an unit that generates units at runtime is an officially supported use case, since generators exist.
      - constantcrying 3y ago
        This doesn't answer the question. Also generators are started very early, before other units have been started, so if your system is already running and now you want to generate those units, depending on the state of the other units, they don't really help. >I don't think having an unit that generates units at runtime is an officially supported use case Are you sure? Can you tell me how I would find out?
        dale_glass 3y ago
        > This doesn't answer the question. Also generators are started very early, before other units have been started, so if your system is already running and now you want to generate those units, depending on the state of the other units, they don't really help. That's the point. Any situation in which you have a system modify itself at runtime is a recipe for a headache. So you do your auto-generation first, then work from a stable state. > Are you sure? Can you tell me how I would find out? Aside from that this kind of recursion seems like a great way to get weird problems, and that generators exist for this exact thing, the whole design of systemd discourages this kind of trickery. Units are just supposed to start a command and little else. Maybe somebody made an official pronouncement on this somewhere, but my personal take on this kind of thing is that it's a bad idea, anywhere, not just systemd.
        constantcrying 3y ago
        >So you do your auto-generation first, then work from a stable state. You can't do auto generation if that generation depends on the output of some units. Generators can not solve that problem. >Units are just supposed to start a command and little else. What a bizarre thing to say. No, that is not just what units are for. I think you are severely misinformed about what systemd is. Units are supposed to take care of ordering accept IPC, define how to handle failures and manage devices. That comment alone makes me believe that you just do not know what you are talking about at all. It completely misses why systemd is designed the way it is and what it tries to accomplish.
        dale_glass 3y ago
    - Spivak 3y ago
      Yes you need a daemon reload to discover the new unit files. Is there in issue with doing this? A reload means reread its config, it's not a reexec.