On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 10:20 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Mon, 13.06.11 22:46, Denys Vlasenko (dvlasenk@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > > Slide 6: > > "We can now boot a system shell-free" > > > > IOW: shell is bad, my new shiny toy is good. > > Oh god. If you had listened you'd have understood that my aim is to > deemphasize shell in the boot process You go quite farther than that. "We can now boot a system shell-free". *Shell-free*. You are not saying "driving boot process by shell scripts is slow because ... ... ..." (an argument I would agree with), you are aiming at *eliminating* shell scripts from boot process. > > Slide 14: > > "systemd is an Init System" > > "systemd is a Platform" > > > > systemd is a platform? Really? What next? systemd is an Aircraft > > Carrier? > > That is not a technical argument, but just FUDing. No, it is a technical argument. I am saying that this is not how things are supposed to be done in Unix. I am saying that you are trying to incorporate as much stuff as possible into systemd, and I think it's wrong. You don't like me saying this? Well, not a surprise. I also don't like when people tell me that I'm wrong. > > Slide 50: > > "Shell is evil" > > "Move to systemd, daemons, kernel, udev, ..." > > > > Again, shell, a tool which endured for 40+ years, is suddenly "evil". > > I don't think this being the consensus. > > Yeah, it's not the right tool for the boot process. Doesn't mean it > wasn't useful for interactive use or for scripting. Just not the right > tool for the boot process. Since you seem to have trouble understanding > that, let me repeat it a couple of times: shell is not the best tool to > accomplish a quick and reliable bootup. Can shell play a part in the boot process, or is it now completely banished? I don't know, is something like this acceptable in the new world of systemd? ulimit -d $((16*1024*1024)) exec my_favorite_program some_opts > > Slide 79: > > "Substantial coverage of basic OS boot-up tasks, including fsck, > > mount, quota, hwclock, readahead, tmpfiles, random-seed, console, > > static module loading, early syslog, plymouth, shutdown, kexec, > > SELinux, initrd+initrd-less boots, cryptsetup, ..." > > > > That's what I refer to by "taking over the world". > > Well, I just refer to that as "systemd as a platform for building an OS from". > > > Note that neither slides, nor this email thread produced an explanation > > WHY all this stuff is thrown together into one project. > > In fact those slides you refer to explain all that. If you don't listen > and don't want to read, then I cannot help you. One last try with > different words, nonetheless: simplicity, speed, robustness, > compactness, functionality. Good that you don't include "modularity" any more. At least one of my arguments reached through, it seems. Let's take a look at each of them: simplicity - I don't see it speed - yes robustness - actually yes, your code seems to be good in that area compactness - no functionality - too much of it. I'd call it bloat I would also add "monolithic and inflexible". Sorry. -- vda -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
