On Fri, 2008-11-14 at 17:23 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote: > On Fri, 14 Nov 2008, Dan Williams wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-11-14 at 17:10 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, 14 Nov 2008, Jeremy Katz wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Also, there's this weird "running daemons are bad" mentality which I'm > >>> not really sure what the right way to approach is. But it's one that > >>> I'm not sure how true it is in our current world of increasingly moving > >>> functionality out of the kernel and into userspace in which case you > >>> have to have something running in addition to the kernel. > >>> > >>> Maybe to try some examples -- irqbalance is a daemon and not in the > >>> kernel anymore[1], does that make it "not useful"? Or for another side, > >>> various kernel threads are really just daemons... maybe we shouldn't run > >>> them either? > >>> > >> > >> if you replace useful with necessary in his argument I think it ends up > >> making more sense. > >> > >> If the daemon is not NECESSARY for the task it is fulfilling then why have > >> it running? > > > > So I guess it boils down to how you define "task" then... > > Actually it boils down to what the task is. > > If the task is: [snip] > Then everything else is unnecessary to have running. > > If the task is to deal with complicated dhcp and wireless configurations, > multiple and complicated vpn configurations and notify the > console/desktop user about all of these things (which a lot of laptops > fall into that category) then NM is extremely useful and I'd argue > necessary for a convenient computing experience. But there's a cost to maintaining two systems that are entirely divergent and with little sharing/modularity. I don't see the value of "don't run a daemon" as outweighing the cost of "keep another system maintained". Jeremy -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
