But what if it's used for evil? :0
systemd's syslogd replacement supports JSON output
11–20 of 54 posts
Re: systemd's syslogd replacement supports JSON output
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
A quick look into systemd reveals that it's comprised of multiple components. For example the journal service is a separate daemon. What part of this does not align with your vision? EDIT: looks like the "monolithic" myth has already been busted: http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html I would say the distinction between systemd and older systems is that systemd follows the "better is better" mantra o…
It's monolithic because you can't pick and choose the components. You have to use all of systemd, or none of it. You can't replace bits of it, or use just parts of it.
And how exactly does Xorg allow you to use parts of it? More importantly, what parts of systemd do you not want to use or do you want to replace, and why?
EDIT: what you're saying appears to be untrue. According to http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html, they provide configure switches for enabling or disabling many things, not unlike how the Linux kernel allows you to enable or disable features.
You know, there are so many people here bashing on Lennart, I'm wondering whether any of you have done your homework at all or because you just bash Lennart for the sake of it. I'm not even using systemd and I found these things in 5 minutes.
Re: systemd's syslogd replacement supports JSON output
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's monolithic because you can't pick and choose the components. You have to use all of systemd, or none of it. You can't replace bits of it, or use just parts of it.
And how exactly does Xorg allow you to use parts of it? More importantly, what parts of systemd do you not want to use or do you want to replace, and why? EDIT: what you're saying appears to be untrue. According to http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html , they provide configure switches for enabling or disabling many things, not unlike how the Linux kernel allows you to enable or disable features. Yo…
I'd like to not use udev. I have a custom Linux that runs both on standardized(internally defined) servers and also virtualized(known hardware) servers. As such, I'm well under 900ms boot times that systemd mentions by using SysV init. But the systemd project does not accept patches (http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/MinimalBuilds/) to disable what is considered a core component.
Re: systemd's syslogd replacement supports JSON output
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's monolithic because you can't pick and choose the components. You have to use all of systemd, or none of it. You can't replace bits of it, or use just parts of it.
And how exactly does Xorg allow you to use parts of it? More importantly, what parts of systemd do you not want to use or do you want to replace, and why? EDIT: what you're saying appears to be untrue. According to http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html , they provide configure switches for enabling or disabling many things, not unlike how the Linux kernel allows you to enable or disable features. Yo…
I can't disable the journal, for example. If I run something more full-featured, I'll still be streaming things through the journal.
It's not at all like the kernel does it. With Linux, there are multiple competing implementations of most features, pushed by people with competing interests. There is a lot more room for debate and experimentation.
Re: systemd's syslogd replacement supports JSON output
#15There some competing trends in the *nix world today. On the one hand, there are some huge, monolithic packages like Xorg that have split in to many smaller, more independent packages. On the other hand, we have something like systemd absorbing ever more functionality, becoming more monolithic with feature bloat. I am personally more in favor of having many small, simple tools that each do one function well and can be…
Sounds like Sutherland's Wheel of Reincarnation in action. All you have to do to predict the next generation of a technology is run further along the wheel.
Re: systemd's syslogd replacement supports JSON output
#16After hearing both sides of the argument over and over again (for systemd and against systemd), my only regret is that Ubuntu is not replacing upstart with systemd, so that Loonix will have a uniform boot system.
To all the systemd naysayers, please read the docs before commenting, 90% of the comments against systemd look like they've been written by someone who:
a) hasn't used systemd
b) hasn't read anything relevant about systemd
Basically most comments come straight out of the blog post about systemd myths. That's really, really sad.
Re: systemd's syslogd replacement supports JSON output
#17Earlier quoted context omitted.
And how exactly does Xorg allow you to use parts of it? More importantly, what parts of systemd do you not want to use or do you want to replace, and why? EDIT: what you're saying appears to be untrue. According to http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html , they provide configure switches for enabling or disabling many things, not unlike how the Linux kernel allows you to enable or disable features. Yo…
I can't disable the journal, for example. If I run something more full-featured, I'll still be streaming things through the journal. It's not at all like the kernel does it. With Linux, there are multiple competing implementations of most features, pushed by people with competing interests. There is a lot more room for debate and experimentation.
According to 'man journald.conf', you can set "Storage=none".
If by "monolithic" you mean the lack of multiple competing implementations, then lots and lots of things are monolithic. Apache and Nginx would be monolithic by your definition.
Re: systemd's syslogd replacement supports JSON output
#18There some competing trends in the *nix world today. On the one hand, there are some huge, monolithic packages like Xorg that have split in to many smaller, more independent packages. On the other hand, we have something like systemd absorbing ever more functionality, becoming more monolithic with feature bloat. I am personally more in favor of having many small, simple tools that each do one function well and can be…
A quick look into systemd reveals that it's comprised of multiple components. For example the journal service is a separate daemon. What part of this does not align with your vision? EDIT: looks like the "monolithic" myth has already been busted: http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html I would say the distinction between systemd and older systems is that systemd follows the "better is better" mantra o…
I agre with your final paragraph and I rather like the consolidation that systemd offers. I'm certainly not going to miss fiddling with consolekit and I'm looking forwards to managing my user session via systemd. It reduces the number of things I need to learn to have a decent level of control over my system.
Re: systemd's syslogd replacement supports JSON output
#19After hearing both sides of the argument over and over again (for systemd and against systemd), my only regret is that Ubuntu is not replacing upstart with systemd, so that Loonix will have a uniform boot system. To all the systemd naysayers, please read the docs before commenting, 90% of the comments against systemd look like they've been written by someone who: a) hasn't used systemd b) hasn't read anything relevan…
[deleted]
Re: systemd's syslogd replacement supports JSON output
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
And how exactly does Xorg allow you to use parts of it? More importantly, what parts of systemd do you not want to use or do you want to replace, and why? EDIT: what you're saying appears to be untrue. According to http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html , they provide configure switches for enabling or disabling many things, not unlike how the Linux kernel allows you to enable or disable features. Yo…
I'd like to not use udev. I have a custom Linux that runs both on standardized(internally defined) servers and also virtualized(known hardware) servers. As such, I'm well under 900ms boot times that systemd mentions by using SysV init. But the systemd project does not accept patches ( http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/MinimalBuilds/ ) to disable what is considered a core component.
Alright, point taken. Then systemd is not for you. However I want to argue that not all software should cater to everybody. While modularity (which in this discussion is apparently defined as "the ability to disable or swap components") is often seen as a good thing, there are quite a lot of downsides as well:
- Certain guarantees and consistencies disappear. Instead of having a system that you know you can rely on, it suddenly becomes entirely dependent on the configuration options. While it sounds nice if any part can be enabled, disabled, moved or swapped, then the system's predictability goes down. Furthermore, some combinations may be incompatible because abstractions are inherently leaky. Good luck finding out whether you're suffering from a compatibility problem or not. You can compare this to the many complaints about Android fragmentation. Because everybody can customize Android, writing an app that works on all Android devices becomes extremely difficult.
- Installation complexity goes way up. It's much easier to install a system if it states "I need this, this and this", instead of "I can use this, or this, or this, if it's configured in X, Y and Z way".
- Certain features cannot be implemented in a simple manner because you have to cater to the lowest common denominator. XFree86 was like that. Because it had to be portable, it cannot assume any kernel capabilities. And as a result XFree86 came with its own mode setting code, its own ELF binary loader, had to run as root, etc etc.