We are talking about systemd here -- what may have been true 18 months ago is not necessarily true now. Components that were once "separated out so nicely"* are no longer (including systemd-udev, central to the topic of this thread, and systemd-tmpfiles, both of which were touted in the footnote as examples of how modular systemd was).



* Even back then, the build system for systemd was monolithic; one was expected to compile all of systemd and then extract the binaries from the resulting tree. How nice!

3 members found this post helpful.

My point was that systemd is not a single process. That was true 18 months ago and is still true today.

Again, my point is that systemd is not a single process. I don't care about how it's built.

I would consider whether all the components run as a single process to be inconsequential. The point of it being monolithic is whether those components can be used separately. Running 'busybox tar' may or may not spawn a separate process, but that wouldn't alter the fact that Busybox is monolithic in that there is no way to invoke its 'tar' command except through Busybox. By the same reasoning, systemd should be considered monolithic.

Contrast that with 'inetd', wherein none of the services supported depend upon the inetd daemon; each can be invoked and executed by itself whether inetd is present or not.

3 members found this post helpful.

systemd is not monolithic.

http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html

Here is a pretty picture from july describing systemd and its parts:

http://linoxide.com/wp-content/uploa...components.png

Talking about education, have you ever heard of "netiquette" ?

Read that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etiquette_in_technology

You know in the universe there are rules... Rules that keeps your feet on the ground, rules which allows life to... live...

Human society have rules too, to prevent some to kill other for example...

Anyway, community web has its own rules, and you just prove everybody you didn't known any of them... Have you heard about "off topic" behaviour ?

Also it's a public, open forum, you're free to create a new thread if you want to discuss "in depth off topic", and not sabotage others threads losing the focus of the Original Question.

Btw, Unspawn, as I understood, is a long time moderator of those forums, a little bit of humility would have help you to think about his responsabilities instead of rushing like a bull, explaining everybody how you think we should behave in those forum...

Want some different rules ? Easy, rent a server, make a web forum, and go on...

Garry.

It seems saulgoodes point that systemd is monolithic, and others point that its a non portable , non modular monster is the correct one.

You miss the point. Systemd does not replace only the init system. It controls much more. If you do not like the word process being used, we can use a different word, but it would not change what systemd does.

If you say something that's wrong and I point it out in the interest of keeping a technical discussion accurate, then you can't tell me that I've missed the point.

If that's what you mean by monolithic or process, then yes, let's use a different word. And of course systemd is much more than the init. It'll be a hell of a lot of work to not have any of it in the future.

Didier Spaier your one of the best members in here but the first thing you learn about life there is no control. open a thread on implementing systemd to slackware leave it there. open a thread on how to get around using it. after reading this thread and the OP thoughts on control I feel it is time to look for another forum where people can handle the fact of an emotional subject.
What do you want us to say. ok let get together write are own kdbus ok lets do it? or or our own init ok lets do it. I really at this point do not care.
I read the beginning the op stated it pretty much a done deal. ok simple get together and do something or just watch the sky fall. To see a moderator go off on a slacker for his passion of the operating system then maybe this is not the home for slackers.

you you want a constructive way of doing this.
1 how do we implement systemd to slackware world.
2 how do we implement Slackware with a new init.

but this is a passionate subject and for people not! to have passion of Slackware the favorite operating system maybe real slackers should look for another forum.
Or may be post a invite to people that want to get involved or you call on the fact that this is a Slackware thread. you set your self up. and you op should Appaligize.
to people that have passion over Slackware. and you moderator should have moved this to general at the first post.

2 members found this post helpful.

Is it really too much to ask to have separate threads for technical discussions vs. impassioned pleas? The two are unrelated and one just clouds the other...if it is no longer possible to have a technical discussion with actual solutions or *pertinent* information, then maybe this really isn't the home for slackers (or anyone with half a brain). I am thankful the moderators see it from the right perspective. I don't really appreciate having to read War and Peace when I'm just trying to keep up with actual developments!

4 members found this post helpful.

yes I agree push the thread to general and and name it technical talk on systemd and leave it at that. but I read the op he he is a great guy but if you want to talk tech a little more settings on your goal.

hey lets get involved lets do something. or you just want to chat.
you have no solution you may suggest but it comes down to the core devel team how to handle this. it is out of my hands i learned a long time ago there is no such thing as control.

udev is currently using Netlink to communicate with other software, the udev developers want to replace that with communication over kdbus. To be able to use kdbus there has to be a userspace component that sets up kdbus at boot time. Systemd is able to do that, but this is in no way systemd-only technology, which is why Lennart Poettering gave the warning to non-systemd distros that they have to come up with their own kdbus userspace component if they want to use udev in the future without using systemd.

1 members found this post helpful.

systemd has evolved into much more than just init over the past 18 months. Please look at the link that Didier gave us and you'll see. (systemd-timesync, systemd-resolved, systemd-syncusers, systemd-logind, systemd-nspawn, etc. etc.).

Wrong!! I, and only I, decide what I run on my machine(s). It doesn't matter what Debian, openSuse or ... no disrespect ... Pat decide to do with the distro. If I think that systemd is not doing me any good. Then I will not use it. Period.

It's my decision with all the consequences of it.

And we each have to make our own choices. So don't blame other people.

http://igurublog.wordpress.com/2014/...tgurus-hiatus/
And sorry to repeat myself - but fatalfrog, tobisgd and their colleagues still have not given me a reason to change my mind. Same ol' back-and-forth.

1 members found this post helpful.

I read it MAD out of my control i love to get some folks together and do something. since this is a slackware thread I think the true answers will only come from Pat. in the mean time. I really like to see it handled the slackware way with out a single point of failure.

Then I think it is wonderful people are so serious about this. i just wish I knew how to handle something I really do not control over slackware.

ok Mad let get together on this and do somthing or join a group that is actually doing something. I really do understand what Prtick is going through you know he was a big help in the last time. I just pray he gets help. if not I guess I can make my own blob.

little input I build on debian and Ubuntu One I have no choice for a few reasons. what you think we should do technically speaking. Mad

1 members found this post helpful.

Okay, here's my take on this. systemd wants udev to drop netlink for kdbus, but kdbus isn't implemented and Linus still has a blockade on code from Sievers at the moment. So how will they implement a system that isn't official and doesn't exist? Will they force a patch for kdbus on the kernel? I doubt it because that would effectively break udev and many operating systems and possibly raise the ire of Linus.

I do not see kdbus any time soon. Linus said it wasn't being added, and I doubt he would add something that would intentionally be used to break non-systemd systems if he knew what was going on. He already warned them about breaking the user space once before.

And for educational purposes might I recommend for the monolithic versus modular argument people, go read The Cathedral and The Bazaar by Eric Raymond and learn something about the real difference in monolithic design versus modular.

2 members found this post helpful.