diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'doc/systemd.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | doc/systemd.html | 120 |
1 files changed, 120 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/doc/systemd.html b/doc/systemd.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..49ba2aa --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/systemd.html @@ -0,0 +1,120 @@ +<html> + <head> + <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" /> + <meta http-equiv="Content-Language" content="en" /> + <title>s6: a word about systemd</title> + <meta name="Description" content="s6: a word about systemd" /> + <meta name="Keywords" content="s6 supervision init systemd" /> + <!-- <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://skarnet.org/default.css" /> --> + </head> +<body> + +<p> +<a href="index.html">s6</a><br /> +<a href="http://skarnet.org/software/">Software</a><br /> +<a href="http://skarnet.org/">skarnet.org</a> +</p> + +<h1> A word about systemd </h1> + +<p> + <a href="http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/">systemd</a> +is becoming <i>de facto</i> a standard init system for Linux. But even +this choice of words is treacherous, because systemd is much more than +an init system. It's basically an integrated redesign of all the low-level +userspace of a Linux system, with great plans to change how software is +run and organized. + +<p> + Which is not a bad thing per se: Unix software can definitely benefit +from improvements in this area, and the s6 suite, among other software, +comes from the same assessment and ultimately has the same goal. But +systemd suffers from a single conception flaw that sets it apart from +the other initiatives, and that has both political and technical +repercussions. +</p> + +<p> +<strong> + The single, overarching problem with systemd is that it attempts, in every +possible way, to do <em>more</em> instead of <em>less</em>. +</strong> +</p> + +<h2> The political issue </h2> + +<p> + systemd attempts to cover <em>more</em> ground instead of <em>less</em>. +In other words, rather than simply being an init system, it tries to be +a complete overhaul of the way a Linux system is run, and tries to force +other software to hook with it in order to be supported. This goes very +much against: +</p> + +<ul> + <li> The Unix philosophy, which is to do one job and do it well; </li> + <li> The <a href="http://www.catb.org/esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/">bazaar</a> +approach that has made the free software ecosystem what it is today; </li> + <li> Cross-platform compatibility. BSD is not dead, Solaris is not dead, +but systemd ignores Unix. It even ignores Linux to some extent: the systemd +authors had the guts to ask for specific kernel interfaces! </li> +</ul> + +<p> + The reason why systemd has become so prevalent is not that it has been +accepted by the community. It's that it has manpower. It is backed up by +open source software companies that can provide much more manpower than +developers like myself working on free software on their own time. The +distribution model of systemd, made of lobbying and bullying, is much more +akin to the distribution model of Microsoft Windows than the one of GNU/Linux. +</p> + +<p> + Which says something. +</p> + +<h2> The technical issue </h2> + +<p> + Software that does <em>more</em> instead of <em>less</em> is, simply put, +badly designed software. Trying to come up with an all-encompassing solution +is always a sign of developer hubris and inexperience, and never a sign of +good engineering. Ever. Remember sendmail, BIND, INN, and, definitely a better +analogy, the early days of Microsoft Windows ? Yes, systemd is in +exactly the same league. It's as if we had learned <em>nothing</em> from the +mistakes of the past 20 years. Technically as well as politically, systemd +is actually very close to Windows; is that the future we want for Linux +machines ? +</p> + +<p> + Doing more instead of less is bad, and it's especially true in the case of +system software, i.e. low-level software that +aims to make the machine work and that application software depends upon. +The goal of an operating system is to make it possible to run <em>applications</em>, +and system software should always partake in that goal. <strong>System software +should stay the heck out of the way</strong>, and systemd is big, loud and +obnoxious. Embedded devices are common, and will become even more common in +the future; that is a market that systemd will have trouble breaking into, because +it's a lot more complex than embedded devices need. And that, too, says something: +if a software suite is too complex for an embedded device, maybe it's just too +complex, period. +</p> + +<h2> Links </h2> + +<ul> + <li> <a href="http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/">systemd's home page</a> </li> + <li> <a href="http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/ProSystemdAntiSystemd/">An analysis of +the vacuity of most Internet arguments about systemd</a>, by the author of +<a href="http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/">uselessd</a>. </li> + <li> <a href="http://boycottsystemd.org">boycottsystemd.org</a>, summarizing +political arguments against systemd </li> + <li> <a href="http://ewontfix.com/14/">Technical arguments against systemd</a>, +by Rich Felker, main author of <a href="http://musl-libc.org/">musl</a> </li> + <li> <a href="http://judecnelson.blogspot.fr/2014/09/systemd-biggest-fallacies.html">A +list of fallacies about systemd, with debunk</a> </li> +</ul> + +</body> +</html> |