3 ms·
We're dealing with irreducible complexity here. Unix philosophy keeps the complexity out of the components - fair enough. But that merely means that the complex
by JulianMorrison 13y ago
We're dealing with irreducible complexity here. Unix philosophy keeps the complexity out of the components - fair enough. But that merely means that the complexity reappears in the glue code (sysvinit and friends). And glue code is harder to secure, being scattered, disparate, and executing in complicated VMs such as the shell-plus-kernel, and therefore hard to reason about.
- dschiptsov 13y agoFreeBSD, OpenBSD, Plan9, AIX (Solaris decision to use Java-based tool was plainly idiotic) for some reasons would think otherwise.
- gtirloni 13y agoWhich Java-based tools is Solaris using in this area? I don't think SMF is Java-based. SMF is pleasant to use and Linux should have copied it entirely, including syntax, but they didn't (NIH syndrome?). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_Management_Facility http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_Management_Facility systemd is really a pain to use. I'm still amazed at how quick everybody was at adopting it. Perhaps people were really desperate to ditch the sysvinit stuff.
- SEJeff 13y agoSystemd is closed to a blatant launchd (OS X) clone
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- gtirloni 13y agoI'm no expert in init systems genealogy but a quick search shows launchd was released in March '05 while Solaris 10 with SMF was released in January '05. Surely they were not working in secret over such a basic OS infrastructure component, so it's possible both exchanged ideas. But more specifically, how do you think they are equal that SMF could be called a clone? I've had a Macbook for a few years but never bothered with launchd much. Care to elaborate?
- Sammi 13y agoBut which one is it that the broad industry finds more useful?
- unethical_ban 13y agoI must admit, breaking the Unix philosophy for ZFS to unify FS/volume/RAID management is a dream come true.