Re: What is the philosophy behind shepherd?

[Christopher Lemmer Webber]

Katherine Cox-Buday writes:

> I must preface this email with the assurance that there is no agenda
> behind my questions; only ignorance and curiosity. Please read it with
> that in mind!
>
> A couple weeks ago, I was watching a video called "The Tragedy of
> Systemd"[1]. In it, Benno Rice discusses the need for a so-called
> "system layer" which is responding to the many complicated signals
> coming into a system from thing happening (e.g. networks becoming
> available/unavailable, VPNs mucking with DNS and routing tables, etc.).
> He characterizes systemd and things like it as something that lives
> between kernel-space and user-space.
>
> It really opened my eyes to why something like systemd exists rather
> than sticking with the old-style init systems.
>
> Does Shepherd take the stance that it is, or is to become a "system
> layer"?
>
> If so, one of the criticisms he has for systemd is that instead of
> pulling in protocols for things (e.g. DNS), and allowing best-of-breed
> software to handle the implementation, it has pulled in the
> responsibility for implementation as well. Any thoughts on that?
>
> [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_AIw9bGogo

I think one interesting thing, to me, is that I agree that this is
desirable, but I think a microkernel + services approach would be much
better architecture.  In such a world then shepherd's role would be to
bootstrap the key services needed to talk to each other.

In other words, I think systemd exists in many ways to make up for the
limitations of a monolithic kernel approach.  In that way, it makes
sense, but I think we could do better with a different fundamental
infrastructure.

But maybe I am wrong!

 - Chris