On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 at 01:07:46PM +0200, Simon Matter wrote:
> That's really an important point, because those who started using Linux
> with Linux/systemd will be bound to Linux/systemd with their knowledge,
> switching to a *BSD or other Unix will be difficult. For me, I don't like
> to be limited in such ways.
Having worked with the init systems in a bunch of different distros, I
really *loved* having to write a different SysV init script for debian
and RHEL, using different functions and different styles. Also, don't
forget to actually package the Red Hat init scripts as
/etc/rc.d/init.d/, because /etc/init.d is a symlink, while on debian
it is the actual location, and if you weren't careful, your package
would create an /etc/init.d directory and suddenly it's not even found
by the init system.
Oh, and as for 'grokkable' shell scripts used by init, they bear only
a passing resemblance between distros, they even differed between
releases of the same distro, making it so you had to learn a different
weird init system for each distro. Heck, there was even an argument
about which shell they're run with. And it was always fun when shell
bugs cropped up in init scripts. A vendor writes an init script using
bash features that aren't in another distro, but it still uses the
#!/bin/sh shebang so you get really weird and difficult-to-diagnose
startup errors.
And heaven forbid you actually want to *SEE* any shell errors.
Nothing is ever captured in any logs, you have to be physically
looking at a console (be it a glass terminal or serial line) to
capture the error.
So, yes, people starting to use systemd won't know about having to do
that. They're also not custom-crafting Modelines in their XF86Config
file for a monitor that uses weird undocumented, non-VESA parameters,
nor are they trying to track down the right interrupt to run their
network card so it doesn't interfere with their sound card. I'm sure
we could create a whole book of all the annoyances with older Linuxes
that have been largely solved.
I don't see systemd as the end-all, be-all init system, I just think
it's heading in a good direction. Its important to provide feedback
like people have on this list, although people in the CentOS community
really ought to provide feedback to the upstream communities.
Here's a good example for me: In other systemd-based distros, they've
got the systemd --user enabled (RHEL/CentOS have it patched out).
This breaks a lot of our use case because the systemd developers don't
think that different sessions of the same user are distinct, so they
want to use systemd --user to manage user processes. This breaks if
you use session-based authentication services like Kerberos. systemd
--user tries to start up processes outside of your PAM session, so it
won't have access to your kerberos tickets. And of course, Gnome
Terminal now uses a gnome-terminal-server process to be the parent of
all terminal sessions, started by systemd (as your user, on behalf of
PID1). So you log in, start up a terminal, and it doesn't have any
Kerberos tickets. Now, what happens if you happen to use an NFS v4
volume for $HOME, which uses Kerberos 5 for authentication? Now not
only does your terminal not have tickets, but IT CAN'T EVEN REACH
$HOME. And of course, systemd --user wants to read and write files in
$HOME, so the whole thing is broken.
What do the systemd developers say? They want it so anyone who
becomes your $USER should just automatically have access to your
Kerberos ticket cache, so systemd can work. This is actually breaking
from the way Kerberos has worked for decades. And it seems that the
systemd developers have just decided that their way is better. But
I'm going to keep pushing back.
--
Jonathan Billings <billings@xxxxxxxxxx>
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
