5 ms·

Open Launchd

65 points by bpierre 12y ago

untothebreach 12y ago
link to the project homepage: https://wiki.freebsd.org/launchd https://wiki.freebsd.org/launchd Not really an apple user, can anyone tell me what the benefit to porting this is? Is it much better than rc.d or sysvinit?
- talideon 12y ago
  Faster boots, on-demand running of rc.d scripts, &c.
- Tuna-Fish 12y ago
  Yes. Launchd is arguably the first modern unix init system, with systemd and upstart being it's conceptual children. It eschews shell scripts in favor of non-turing complete launch configs, manages process lifetimes in addition to just starting them and does bootup in parallel using pre-created sockets for synchronization. It is quite barebones compared to systemd, but fundamentally it uses similar approaches to fulfill the same goals.
  - knorby 12y ago
    Solaris SMF came out at around the same time as launchd, which looks a bit more like systemd. I don't think there is one single origin to these systems.
calibwam 12y ago
Last commit made 5 months ago, and no updates on the project anywhere. Seems abandoned.
- privong 12y ago
  The FreeBSD wiki page[0] has an updates page, with this, from a month and a half ago: > 20140910: Outback Dingo has made available an older port of pfSense's launchd_xml. [0] https://wiki.freebsd.org/launchd https://wiki.freebsd.org/launchd
  - vezzy-fnord 12y ago
    And a link to the repository: https://github.com/outbackdingo/launchd_xml https://github.com/outbackdingo/launchd_xml
    - feld 12y ago
      Note that the pfsense / outbackdingo launchd did something rather naughty -- it put the xml parser back in pid 1 which was intentionally not there by design at Apple. tl;dr even if you could convince the FreeBSD devs that launchd is a great idea they wouldn't accept this as-is.
      - riffraff 12y ago
        doesn't launchd on osx also parse plist xml files? How are those handled?
        meepmorp 12y ago
        OS X has a binary plist format, too. Maybe it uses that to bootstrap and does xml parsing in sub-processes.
        feld 12y ago
        There's another binary that does the processing and the data is sent to the launchd daemon over a Mach-specific IPC channel that FreeBSD doesn't have.
  - rtyler 12y ago
    The launchd_xml code is mildly toxic for openlaunchd, it's derived off of the Apple Public Source License codebase instead of the newer Apache 2.0 licensed codebase that openlaunchd derives from. IMO the ASL is going to be required to get FreeBSD to adopt openlaunchd at some point
  - rtyler 12y ago
    The launchd_xml code is mildly toxic for openlaunchd, it's derived off of the Apple Public Source License codebase instead of the newer Apache 2.0 licensed codebase that openlaunchd derives from. IMO the ASL is going to be required to get FreeBSD to adopt openlaunchd at some point
- rtyler 12y ago
  Not quite abandoned, more a question of time. The upstream code is sufficiently undocumented and without tests that in some cases my approach has been to #ifdef stuff out until I can at least get some units compiling. A test suite for this code would have made this whole effort far easier :(
kator 12y ago
I wonder if this could be used as an alternative to systemd?
- nailer 12y ago
  It does most of the same things - the objections to systemd around covering multiple overlapping areas in a single project would also apply to launchd (and the Solaris SMF). The best way to make cron / at / sysvinit / syslog / daemonize / xinetd / supervisord fans happy is to let them keep using cron / at / sysvinit / syslog / daemonize / xinetd / supervisord.
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    The biggest difference is that Apple hasn't demonstrated hostility/irrationality/utter dickery at people who report bugs on their tracker. The same cannot be said of systemd.
    - jtgeibel 12y ago
      Is there even an open bug tracker for launchd?
      - Karunamon 12y ago
        Not really "open", it's write only. http://bugreport.apple.com http://bugreport.apple.com
        jtgeibel 12y ago
        Thanks, I tried searching for a launchd bug tracker but didn't find this. I'm still not sure if this is a fair comparison as we can't actually see how apple has responded to similar concerns (if any).
    - general_failure 12y ago
      Fact is most people don't care about the init system as long as it works.
0x0 12y ago
Is this related to the recent "OSX 10.10 OpenSource" post? Someone did claim that Apple stopped posting the source code for launchd...
- vezzy-fnord 12y ago
  I don't think so, no. A launchd port to FreeBSD is a project that has been hanging around and attempted multiple times by various parties with differing success (I linked to a working, though early launchd_xml port below). This one in particular is the openlaunchd port first started by R. Tyler back in 2005 when he was a GSoC student, but was abandoned and restarted 8 years later in 2013, announced here: http://unethicalblogger.com/2013/12/03/scratchiest-neckbeard-freebsd-x200.html http://unethicalblogger.com/2013/12/03/scratchiest-neckbeard... [...] FreeBSD unlocks some hacking that I've wanted to do, such as: Restarting my work with launchd on top of FreeBSD as a viable alternative to rc.d (aside: systemd which many Linux hackers are familiar with can be considered a poor impersonation of launchd, which is, in my opinion, a pretty stellar job management daemon) That said, I don't think openlaunchd is entirely dead yet. I think a launchd port to FreeBSD is inevitable, whether it's this, launchd_xml or some other one (I'm fairly certain there's some non-public ports), but as a whole it's been a protracted ordeal.
jfb 12y ago
Being that I am a Mac guy, I always sort of wondered about launchd as a reasonable middle ground between the godawful current init mess and the looming all-encompassing Stygian Lovecraftian systemd mess.
- gh02t 12y ago
  Apple originally wanted other Unix-likes to consider launchd. Ubuntu was considering it and I think even had it briefly as an option, but ultimately they decided to go with Upstart. This was mostly because the original license terms for launchd were deemed too restrictive (Apple Open Source License had some extra terms that were somewhat unpopular). Apple changed the license terms a year or two later, but it was too late. I would love to see this on BSD though.
deng 12y ago
Was there any work done to replace XML for configuration? You may call it superficial, but I'd make that a priority over pretty much everything else. Many people won't get past that bullet point.

65 points by bpierre 12y ago

link to the project homepage: https://wiki.freebsd.org/launchd https://wiki.freebsd.org/launchd Not really an apple user, can anyone tell me what the benefit to porting this is? Is it much better than rc.d or sysvinit?

talideon 12y ago
Faster boots, on-demand running of rc.d scripts, &c.
Tuna-Fish 12y ago
Yes. Launchd is arguably the first modern unix init system, with systemd and upstart being it's conceptual children. It eschews shell scripts in favor of non-turing complete launch configs, manages process lifetimes in addition to just starting them and does bootup in parallel using pre-created sockets for synchronization. It is quite barebones compared to systemd, but fundamentally it uses similar approaches to fulfill the same goals.
- knorby 12y ago
  Solaris SMF came out at around the same time as launchd, which looks a bit more like systemd. I don't think there is one single origin to these systems.

calibwam 12y ago

Last commit made 5 months ago, and no updates on the project anywhere. Seems abandoned.

privong 12y ago
The FreeBSD wiki page[0] has an updates page, with this, from a month and a half ago: > 20140910: Outback Dingo has made available an older port of pfSense's launchd_xml. [0] https://wiki.freebsd.org/launchd https://wiki.freebsd.org/launchd
- vezzy-fnord 12y ago
  And a link to the repository: https://github.com/outbackdingo/launchd_xml https://github.com/outbackdingo/launchd_xml
  - feld 12y ago
    Note that the pfsense / outbackdingo launchd did something rather naughty -- it put the xml parser back in pid 1 which was intentionally not there by design at Apple. tl;dr even if you could convince the FreeBSD devs that launchd is a great idea they wouldn't accept this as-is.
    - riffraff 12y ago
      doesn't launchd on osx also parse plist xml files? How are those handled?
      - meepmorp 12y ago
        OS X has a binary plist format, too. Maybe it uses that to bootstrap and does xml parsing in sub-processes.
      - feld 12y ago
        There's another binary that does the processing and the data is sent to the launchd daemon over a Mach-specific IPC channel that FreeBSD doesn't have.
- rtyler 12y ago
  The launchd_xml code is mildly toxic for openlaunchd, it's derived off of the Apple Public Source License codebase instead of the newer Apache 2.0 licensed codebase that openlaunchd derives from. IMO the ASL is going to be required to get FreeBSD to adopt openlaunchd at some point
- rtyler 12y ago
  The launchd_xml code is mildly toxic for openlaunchd, it's derived off of the Apple Public Source License codebase instead of the newer Apache 2.0 licensed codebase that openlaunchd derives from. IMO the ASL is going to be required to get FreeBSD to adopt openlaunchd at some point
rtyler 12y ago
Not quite abandoned, more a question of time. The upstream code is sufficiently undocumented and without tests that in some cases my approach has been to #ifdef stuff out until I can at least get some units compiling. A test suite for this code would have made this whole effort far easier :(

kator 12y ago

I wonder if this could be used as an alternative to systemd?

nailer 12y ago
It does most of the same things - the objections to systemd around covering multiple overlapping areas in a single project would also apply to launchd (and the Solaris SMF). The best way to make cron / at / sysvinit / syslog / daemonize / xinetd / supervisord fans happy is to let them keep using cron / at / sysvinit / syslog / daemonize / xinetd / supervisord.
- Karunamon 12y ago
  The biggest difference is that Apple hasn't demonstrated hostility/irrationality/utter dickery at people who report bugs on their tracker. The same cannot be said of systemd.
  - jtgeibel 12y ago
    Is there even an open bug tracker for launchd?
    - Karunamon 12y ago
      Not really "open", it's write only. http://bugreport.apple.com http://bugreport.apple.com
      - jtgeibel 12y ago
        Thanks, I tried searching for a launchd bug tracker but didn't find this. I'm still not sure if this is a fair comparison as we can't actually see how apple has responded to similar concerns (if any).
  - general_failure 12y ago
    Fact is most people don't care about the init system as long as it works.

0x0 12y ago

Is this related to the recent "OSX 10.10 OpenSource" post? Someone did claim that Apple stopped posting the source code for launchd...

vezzy-fnord 12y ago
I don't think so, no. A launchd port to FreeBSD is a project that has been hanging around and attempted multiple times by various parties with differing success (I linked to a working, though early launchd_xml port below). This one in particular is the openlaunchd port first started by R. Tyler back in 2005 when he was a GSoC student, but was abandoned and restarted 8 years later in 2013, announced here: http://unethicalblogger.com/2013/12/03/scratchiest-neckbeard-freebsd-x200.html http://unethicalblogger.com/2013/12/03/scratchiest-neckbeard... [...] FreeBSD unlocks some hacking that I've wanted to do, such as: Restarting my work with launchd on top of FreeBSD as a viable alternative to rc.d (aside: systemd which many Linux hackers are familiar with can be considered a poor impersonation of launchd, which is, in my opinion, a pretty stellar job management daemon) That said, I don't think openlaunchd is entirely dead yet. I think a launchd port to FreeBSD is inevitable, whether it's this, launchd_xml or some other one (I'm fairly certain there's some non-public ports), but as a whole it's been a protracted ordeal.

jfb 12y ago

Being that I am a Mac guy, I always sort of wondered about launchd as a reasonable middle ground between the godawful current init mess and the looming all-encompassing Stygian Lovecraftian systemd mess.

gh02t 12y ago
Apple originally wanted other Unix-likes to consider launchd. Ubuntu was considering it and I think even had it briefly as an option, but ultimately they decided to go with Upstart. This was mostly because the original license terms for launchd were deemed too restrictive (Apple Open Source License had some extra terms that were somewhat unpopular). Apple changed the license terms a year or two later, but it was too late. I would love to see this on BSD though.

deng 12y ago

Was there any work done to replace XML for configuration? You may call it superficial, but I'd make that a priority over pretty much everything else. Many people won't get past that bullet point.