Armin K. wrote: > On 01/26/2013 11:07 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote: >> Armin K. wrote: >>> http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html >>> >>> I am just sharing this. Please don't start any arguments why something >>> he said is true or not. >> >> Not an argument, a discussion. >> >> There are a few things that he left out. >> >> systemd uses binary log files that can't use standard tools like grep. >> Myth or fact?
> You want 20 and 22. Short: You can run any kind of syslog in order to > provide log files or you can use journalctl in order to output logs in > lot of formats, from some time period, only for last boot, and you can > use awk, grep and such on a journalctl output - same as plain ol' logs. True, but then you are running two systems. It seems like it makes the entire system more complicated. >> systemd does not support building udev without the rest of systemd. >> Myth or fact? > Well, yes that is true. He said that it isn't possible to turn off core > components and that's systemd, journald and udevd itself. You can still > turn everything else off. It's perfectly possible to build udev alone. We do that now. Our Makefile really isn't that complicated. It's just that they have specifically turned down patches that do just that. The systemd build system requires intltool (needs XML::Parser), gperf, libcap2, dbus, and glib (needs libffi and Python). Not exactly the minimal needs for LFS. >> systemd solves problems encountered by many/most LFS users. Myth or fact? >> > Problems like? It would solve the problem with next GNOME release > depending upon logind, as well as KDE 4.10 has been replacing ConsoleKit > code with logind one. That's my point. Right now there are not any problems that it solves. Gnome is making one though. Why? It looks like the camel has gotten the nose under the tent. I'm curious though. I thought Gnome and KDE ran on bsd, but I could be mistaken. Personally, I've migrated to xfce because it has far less overhead than the bigger gui environments. >> systemd boots significantly faster than LFS on the same hardware. Myth >> or fact? >> > > Fact 2. It's not just about speed. But it's promoted as such. #2 and #3 seem a little contradictory to me. >> systemd has/needs over 100 pages of documentation. Myth or fact? > systemd is not an init system itself. It has lot of features. > > Fact 5 covers that up. It is not harder than sysvinit. Do note that you > had to learn sysvinit at some point, including shell scripting, use of > sed, awk, nice, grep, etc, etc to get sysvinit+initscripts to work. The /etc/inittab configuration file on my system is 17 lines. The init scripts are quite trivial. My view is that systemd is a swiss army knife that provides a lot of tools whether you want them or not. In many ways it seems to replace several packages: sysvinit, shadow, sysklogd, kbd, (possibly readline) and several programs from util-linux. If course it subsumed udev too. A system admin needs to know sed, awk, nice, grep, etc anyway. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
