5 ms·

No, what happened was init scripts. Something completely alien to the original init tab concept. It was an extremely ugly hack that worked only because of exten

by mordae 13y ago

No, what happened was init scripts. Something completely alien to the original init tab concept. It was an extremely ugly hack that worked only because of extensive documentation and effort by much larger amount of people than systemd has now. Both systemd and journal are an actual solution. Try journalctl on your system, it actually makes sense! The silly thing even has bash completion of filtering criteria! And they are both lightning fast.

zanny 13y ago
I do want to mention binary logs piss me off, but I just set up journald to output to syslog and everything is fine. I just ignore journalctl. I personally find it to be quite slow, but I can just set it to not log its binary blobs.
fosap 13y ago
something that was not necessary. Init scripts can be nice and clean [1]. And yes, I'm all for a init replacement. Something new, nice and clean. But I take the shell script hackery over a dbus dependency. But that's just my personal opinion. I have neither used it nor looked at the code, but [2] seems to be what I want. It's by the libdietc author, so i expect the code to be small, elegant and not maintained very well. [1] http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/rc-scripting/rcng-dummy.html http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/rc-scripting/rcng-dum... [2] http://www.fefe.de/minit/ http://www.fefe.de/minit/
- benbataille 13y ago
  That's again a myth. There is no dbus dependency. You can use dbus to do activation but you don't have to. Now, there is a dependency on libdbus which just means systemd is using the dbus serialisation format for its ipc (which, I repeat, don't have to happen over dbus).
  - fosap 13y ago
    Systemd seems to be quite mysterious, because the myth of the dbus dependency comes from the lead developer trying to debunk myths. http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html >When you build systemd, it only requires three dependencies: glibc, libcap and dbus. In the paragraph "bloated".
    - benbataille 13y ago
      It's because I'm not really precise (but neither is Lennart). Technically, libdbus is a part of dbus. It allows two applications to communicate with each other using the dbus serialisation and abstracts the transport layer. You can use it over a Unix socket and then it's just a serialisation format like any application using IPC would need. Then, using dbus is no more stupid than anything else. Actually, it's pretty clever as there already is quite a lot of tools understanding this format. However, libdus is not what people usually talk about when they talk of dbus. The core part of dbus and what could bother server administrator is the message bus daemon which allows any applications to expose their functionalities and talk to any others. Now, systemd can use the message bus to allow applications to ask for service activation. But, it's not required and you can run the init system without it.

by mordae 13y ago

zanny 13y ago

I do want to mention binary logs piss me off, but I just set up journald to output to syslog and everything is fine. I just ignore journalctl. I personally find it to be quite slow, but I can just set it to not log its binary blobs.

fosap 13y ago

something that was not necessary. Init scripts can be nice and clean [1]. And yes, I'm all for a init replacement. Something new, nice and clean. But I take the shell script hackery over a dbus dependency. But that's just my personal opinion. I have neither used it nor looked at the code, but [2] seems to be what I want. It's by the libdietc author, so i expect the code to be small, elegant and not maintained very well. [1] http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/rc-scripting/rcng-dummy.html http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/articles/rc-scripting/rcng-dum... [2] http://www.fefe.de/minit/ http://www.fefe.de/minit/

benbataille 13y ago
That's again a myth. There is no dbus dependency. You can use dbus to do activation but you don't have to. Now, there is a dependency on libdbus which just means systemd is using the dbus serialisation format for its ipc (which, I repeat, don't have to happen over dbus).
- fosap 13y ago
  Systemd seems to be quite mysterious, because the myth of the dbus dependency comes from the lead developer trying to debunk myths. http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html >When you build systemd, it only requires three dependencies: glibc, libcap and dbus. In the paragraph "bloated".
  - benbataille 13y ago
    It's because I'm not really precise (but neither is Lennart). Technically, libdbus is a part of dbus. It allows two applications to communicate with each other using the dbus serialisation and abstracts the transport layer. You can use it over a Unix socket and then it's just a serialisation format like any application using IPC would need. Then, using dbus is no more stupid than anything else. Actually, it's pretty clever as there already is quite a lot of tools understanding this format. However, libdus is not what people usually talk about when they talk of dbus. The core part of dbus and what could bother server administrator is the message bus daemon which allows any applications to expose their functionalities and talk to any others. Now, systemd can use the message bus to allow applications to ask for service activation. But, it's not required and you can run the init system without it.