3 ms·

I think he speaks for sysadmins. If you are using cgroups at the moment you can write scripts for them. It's a mounted filesystem. The change forces you to use

by nisa 12y ago

I think he speaks for sysadmins. If you are using cgroups at the moment you can write scripts for them. It's a mounted filesystem. The change forces you to use systemd for cgroups as only systemd is able to write to cgroups. The argument is: If you don't like systemd implement an alternative that does this for you. Some for kdbus and udev, netlink... The article is right - it's not Linux as we know it anymore for better or worse.

0x006A 12y ago
at best he might speak for some sysadmins. His position does not reflect that of all sysadmins so its wrong to pretend it is.
sandGorgon 12y ago
That is the change that kernel wants, not systemd. They want to prevent direct access to Cgroups, other than through a single writer. This change is happening regardless of whether you want systemd or not.
- nisa 12y ago
  You are right. I remembered reading an article from 2013 that gave the impression that the changes where related to systemd and then it shed a different light on the issues (https://lwn.net/Articles/555922/ https://lwn.net/Articles/555922/) but it looks like the features are mostly back and in a better shape: http://lwn.net/Articles/601840/ http://lwn.net/Articles/601840/
vidarh 12y ago
He doesn't speak for sysadmins. I'm a sysadmin, and I love Systemd. He may speak for some subset of sysadmin, but he certainly does not speak for us all.
spb 12y ago
> The change forces you to use systemd for cgroups as only systemd is able to write to cgroups. The argument is: If you don't like systemd implement an alternative that does this for you. And from the looks of it, this has been done: https://cgmanager.linuxcontainers.org/ https://cgmanager.linuxcontainers.org/ as reported at http://lwn.net/Articles/618411/ http://lwn.net/Articles/618411/