On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 9:12 PM, Cody Maloney <cmaloney@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 6:22 PM, C Anthony Risinger <anthony@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> ... so, anyone out there to support or refute this observation (with actual >> experience ...) > > Better is a matter of opinion. From what I've gathered about systemd > it makes a lot of things a lot better/simpler/cleaner, and seems to be > fairly sensibly put together. don't forget things that were previously not possible! like verifiable boot, reliable kill/term/reload (WITHOUT cooperation from the child process), and resource limiting for example... all of which are rather important for servers :-) > Systemd definitely gets a lot right, and I do use > it some on my desktops which already have a strong dependency on > D-Bus. arch desktops? could you elaborate more here; how is the experience? > I could see possibly trying to build a non-bash/sysv init > system for Arch to provide much of what systemd provides i don't understand what you mean here... reinvent an application that currently gaining much traction/backing? why? > but I don't > like bringing in D-Bus as a core system dependency to do so. I like > KISS, and D-Bus (at least in its current state), just doesn't fit into > my interpretation of KISS on any machine. i just did a quick check on dbus-core. minus all the man pages, headers, etc. you are left with a single dynamic library, and 5 binaries. these combined weigh in at a whopping half a MB (yes, that's 0.5MB :-). what's not kiss about that? i guess i think dbus is pretty awesome. quite frankly, i love linux but i'm tired of editing 1000s of different kinds of config files with different syntax, and disparate methods for doing every little thing. it's a high speed bus that lets me use language <insert here> to speak to many different running applications, independent of the application's language, reliably and effectively. things like libvirt/policykit are very important to my personal/professional uses of linux, at home and company. i don't see dbus going away anytime soon, and honestly i hope it becomes integrated into everything and becomes integral to the linux experience, because from a development point of view it adds a lot of flexibility to grow and introspect, with little if any drawbacks (though i could very well be missing something). > D-Bus has directly reduced both the predictability and stability of my machines, > ... > for the time being, it has caused me nothing but problems. how so? if you mean applications changing their interface, this really isn't dbus's fault. could you elaborate more? i have many systems and custom scripts that rely on it in one way or another and i haven't experienced any issues. thanks for your response; it's well appreciated. C Anthony
