5 ms·

> Actually, launchd replaces init, inetd, crond, atd, and watchdogd. That's not a "system daemon". Let's break it down: - init: start/stop services - inet: s

> Actually, launchd replaces init, inetd, crond, atd, and watchdogd. That's not a "system daemon". Let's break it down: - init: start/stop services - inet: start/stop services - cron: start jobs on a schedule - atd: start jobs on a schedule - watchdogd: restart services Notice the commonality? launchd launches services, possibly on a schedule. > I mean where do you think systemd got the idea from? :) systemd is monolithic and system-invasive in ways that launchd never could be, or that anyone wants it to be. Just take a look at the systemd feature list[1]: Quota handling, swap handling, encrypted disk handling, kernel module loading, graphical UI, syslog replacement, console/keyboard configuration, X11 integration, fsck handling, serial console handling, and more! Systemd is a crazy kitchen sink of a project. It's no wonder that it's non-portable, and I can't imagine trying to evolve the components of a system that came to rely on it. The minute you want to change how an OS subsystem works (eg, such as the automounter), you'll have to dig into the non-portable/non-abstracted systemd code. [1] http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/why.html http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/why.html

bitwize 13y ago
Yes, but... five second boot time! Notice the commonality? launchd launches services, possibly on a schedule. And so does systemd. The other stuff is handled by separate daemons that are part of the overall systemd project. See? Separate processes! That means it's not tightly coupled at all! Personally, I feel that systemd is a shitfest -- so bad I switched back to slackware from Arch, being more than willing to sacrifice bleeding-edge distro releases and dependency management just to avoid it -- and that the unix way is how things should be developed. It's been a while since I've really been on top of Mac OS X internals, but if what you say is true they're doing a much better job of remaining modular and loosely coupled than Lennart has been. But the CADT hivemind has declared the traditional Unix model obsolete. They tend to do a lot of throwing out babies with the bathwater, then rationalize it by saying obviously they were children no one wanted, and aren't we overpopulated enough as it is. I don't think Lennart is particularly innovative in this regard; he learned the game from the GNOME team. When the rationale for your black hole in my /usr/lib is called "Let's Make Unix Not Suck", you know you're a special breed of arrogant.
- bkor 13y ago
  systemd can boot quite a bit faster than just 5 seconds. In any case, do you have any specific complaints? Your post is pretty long but lacks specifics.
  - anonyfuss 13y ago
    > systemd can boot quite a bit faster than just 5 seconds. So can other operating systems, no monolithic kitchen sink of systemd required [1]. [1] I realize that having 69 totally interdependent and non-portable daemons is considered "non-monolithic" in systemd-land, but I live in the real universe.
    - jeltz 13y ago
      Other init systems are just as bad. It is not like the scripts and executables used in sysvinit or upstart are any more portable than the systemd executables (which are not daemons). They are usually less portable since many of them are distro specific. If anything you should call systemd out for inventing another standard to solve the problem of there being too many standards.
      - anonyfuss 13y ago
        > Other init systems are just as bad. Hardly. Other init systems don't bolt together everything from a (mandatory) syslog replacement to an NFS automounter to a kernel module loader.
  - bitwize 13y ago
    Pid 1 does a lot. You lost me right there. Beyond that, the fact that the basic fundamental underpinnings of a Linux system are large monsters that try to do everything, and depend on dbus and libthis and libthat, is deeply offensive. So is the fact that despite there being many daemons in "systemd", they all depend on each other so that to get the benefits of one you have to take them all. It's the GNOME style of programming. I've hated GNOME since 1999 when it first came out, but I didn't worry too much about it since I never used it. But if this crap becomes the norm at a basic system level, it obviates the reason I got into Linux in the first place: to have a clean and useful Unix system that does the minimum it needs to do and otherwise stays the hell out of my way.

bitwize 13y ago

Yes, but... five second boot time! Notice the commonality? launchd launches services, possibly on a schedule. And so does systemd. The other stuff is handled by separate daemons that are part of the overall systemd project. See? Separate processes! That means it's not tightly coupled at all! Personally, I feel that systemd is a shitfest -- so bad I switched back to slackware from Arch, being more than willing to sacrifice bleeding-edge distro releases and dependency management just to avoid it -- and that the unix way is how things should be developed. It's been a while since I've really been on top of Mac OS X internals, but if what you say is true they're doing a much better job of remaining modular and loosely coupled than Lennart has been. But the CADT hivemind has declared the traditional Unix model obsolete. They tend to do a lot of throwing out babies with the bathwater, then rationalize it by saying obviously they were children no one wanted, and aren't we overpopulated enough as it is. I don't think Lennart is particularly innovative in this regard; he learned the game from the GNOME team. When the rationale for your black hole in my /usr/lib is called "Let's Make Unix Not Suck", you know you're a special breed of arrogant.

bkor 13y ago
systemd can boot quite a bit faster than just 5 seconds. In any case, do you have any specific complaints? Your post is pretty long but lacks specifics.
- anonyfuss 13y ago
  > systemd can boot quite a bit faster than just 5 seconds. So can other operating systems, no monolithic kitchen sink of systemd required [1]. [1] I realize that having 69 totally interdependent and non-portable daemons is considered "non-monolithic" in systemd-land, but I live in the real universe.
  - jeltz 13y ago
    Other init systems are just as bad. It is not like the scripts and executables used in sysvinit or upstart are any more portable than the systemd executables (which are not daemons). They are usually less portable since many of them are distro specific. If anything you should call systemd out for inventing another standard to solve the problem of there being too many standards.
    - anonyfuss 13y ago
      > Other init systems are just as bad. Hardly. Other init systems don't bolt together everything from a (mandatory) syslog replacement to an NFS automounter to a kernel module loader.
- bitwize 13y ago
  Pid 1 does a lot. You lost me right there. Beyond that, the fact that the basic fundamental underpinnings of a Linux system are large monsters that try to do everything, and depend on dbus and libthis and libthat, is deeply offensive. So is the fact that despite there being many daemons in "systemd", they all depend on each other so that to get the benefits of one you have to take them all. It's the GNOME style of programming. I've hated GNOME since 1999 when it first came out, but I didn't worry too much about it since I never used it. But if this crap becomes the norm at a basic system level, it obviates the reason I got into Linux in the first place: to have a clean and useful Unix system that does the minimum it needs to do and otherwise stays the hell out of my way.