guix-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: What is the philosophy behind shepherd?


From: Adam Pribyl
Subject: Re: What is the philosophy behind shepherd?
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2019 19:52:19 +0200 (CEST)
User-agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11)

Shepherd is more like (sysv)init system, what's different is it is in guile, ie. you may easily extended or script it like you did with init via bash and like you can not with systemd because systemd only allows ComplicatedSetOfPredefinedCrypticWordsToDoAnything.

To my experience systemd is good as long as you do not hit anything authors did not considered important to take care of. Latest hit:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1665931


On Sat, 6 Apr 2019, Katherine Cox-Buday wrote:

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
--
Katherine







reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]