[175475] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Linux: concerns over systemd [OT]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (C. Jon Larsen)
Wed Oct 22 16:08:40 2014
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 16:03:36 -0400 (EDT)
From: "C. Jon Larsen" <jlarsen@richweb.com>
To: David Ford <david@blue-labs.org>
In-Reply-To: <54480717.2030609@blue-labs.org>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
>> Which leads me to ask - those of you running server farms - what
>> distros are popular these days, for server-side operations? We've
>> been running Debian like forever (by way of Solaris and redhat) - but
>> this systemd thing is making me rethink things. Seems like an awful
>> lot of folks are now designing for the desktop, and it might be time
>> to migrate to a BSD or Solaris derivative. What are others doing?
>
> to be honest, i like systemd. nobody else has really stepped up to the
> bat to fix issues of existing init systems and tying interoperabilty
> into a common bus.
Perhaps because folks that understand more about security than you (and
me for sure so I'm not picking on you) think thats a bad idea? If
something is a bad idea then smart folks dont rush out (generally) to
build it ... thus the no one stepping up to bat "problem" thats not really
a problem - its a good thing to not have problems solved improperly.
Perhaps because when you say/hear things like "tying interoperabilty into
a common bus" you think thats a good idea. Others hear those same words and think:
vendor lock-in
single point of failure
lack of choice
The binary logging thing is a non-starter for a lot of folks. dbus ? On a
server ? Do we really need that ?
Lets keep servers reliable - less code not more (no bugs in unwritten
code).
Shouldnt the amount of code running as PID 1 be kept to an absolute
minimum?
Bad architecture decisions dont suddenly become good ones even if they
solve other problems along the way or make some things better or faster.
