Re: Description de systemd ?

Moi j’aime bien systemd le système d’init, mais les trucs à la consolekit/policykit je les ai toujours fuis comme la peste. Lennart ne veut pas seulement faire plein de briques (j’ai rien contre ça, au contraire), mais il veut les « unifier », c’est à dire de faire de tout ça un gros paquet de nouilles interdépendant.

Sauf que ça ne l'est pas.

Myth: systemd is monolithic.

If you build systemd with all configuration options enabled you will build 69 individual binaries. These binaries all serve different tasks, and are neatly separated for a number of reasons. For example, we designed systemd with security in mind, hence most daemons run at minimal privileges (using kernel capabilities, for example) and are responsible for very specific tasks only, to minimize their security surface and impact. Also, systemd parallelizes the boot more than any prior solution. This parallization happens by running more processes in parallel. Thus it is essential that systemd is nicely split up into many binaries and thus processes. In fact, many of these binaries[1] are separated out so nicely, that they are very useful outside of systemd, too.

A package involving 69 individual binaries can hardly be called monolithic. What is different from prior solutions however, is that we ship more components in a single tarball, and maintain them upstream in a single repository with a unified release cycle.

"Quand certains râlent contre systemd, d'autres s'attaquent aux vrais problèmes." (merci Sinma !)