An Article About Systemd's Architecture

[phoronix]

Phoronix: An Article About Systemd's Archiecture

There's a lengthy article out that goes through the innards of systemd's architecture...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Systemd-Architecture-Read

[rtfazeberdee]

That's unreadable to my eyes - white text on a black background.....

[Ericg]

That's unreadable to my eyes - white text on a black background.....

I read it, its -long-. There was a reddit thread on it a week or so ago, a lot of people were pointing out flaws in some of their arguments, though agreed on different points. The take-away I took from it was "systemd isn't perfect, it has trade-offs", pretty much like every other piece of software ever written. Though, I do appreciate the fact they at least -tried- to focus on technical and design aspects of systemd rather philosophical ones. They also do a fairly decent job at comparing things to OpenRC, SysV, launchd, etc.

[Michael_S]

I read it, its -long-. There was a reddit thread on it a week or so ago, a lot of people were pointing out flaws in some of their arguments, though agreed on different points. The take-away I took from it was "systemd isn't perfect, it has trade-offs", pretty much like every other piece of software ever written. Though, I do appreciate the fact they at least -tried- to focus on technical and design aspects of systemd rather philosophical ones. They also do a fairly decent job at comparing things to OpenRC, SysV, launchd, etc.

I found the article frustrating. The author may well have a point, but he's not as good at explaining the systemd architecture as Lennart. I'm not saying that makes his criticisms invalid, just that I couldn't follow some of what he wrote.

I have to say I'm thrilled that we got to three posts on the topic without someone on either side starting a flamewar.

[pal666]

veteran unix admins strike back

[boxie]

I tried reading the article, got about a quarter of the way through before I was out of my depth. My take away from that much is:
* The author does not like systemd (the tone of voice was definitely not neutral)
* The author believes some of the design decisions have not been well researched on why others have done/not done things

My overall impression is that there are a bunch of things that could be done possibly better and that there is some code clean up and consistency that needs to happen to the architecture.

[rtfazeberdee]

I found the article frustrating. The author may well have a point, but he's not as good at explaining the systemd architecture as Lennart. I'm not saying that makes his criticisms invalid, just that I couldn't follow some of what he wrote.

I have to say I'm thrilled that we got to three posts on the topic without someone on either side starting a flamewar.

You can say that again, i had to copy it to a writer doc to read it and reread and reread....... it seems verbal diarrhea rules this analysis

[nadrimajstor]

On one side SysV/upstart had simple codebase and complex confs. On the other, systemd tries to offer simple confs in exchange for complex codebase. If there are by far more sysadmins than system software developers it does make sense to push/hide complexity inside codebase (i.e. figure out complex things once and everyone can benefit onward).

[Nobu]

For those of you complaining about the colors...here you go.

I only got about half way through before I stopped reading--seemed like he was only pointing out problems and not providing solutions, but I may have forgotten some suggestions of his between now and when I read it. Couldn't log in to post until today. :/

[higuita]

That's unreadable to my eyes - white text on a black background.....

In firefox you can click on the "book icon" on the url bar to switch to reader mode, were the "trash" is removed and you can switch to white or black background as you want.
Most people don't know this, but it is a useful feature to read things on the internet