[blfs-support] Latest news in GNOME world
bruce.dubbs at gmail.com
Wed Nov 14 10:49:42 PST 2012
Simon Geard wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-11-13 at 10:47 -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> I believe that cgroups is primarily implemented in the kernel. My
>> problem is that when is type 'mount' from the command line, I get many
>> more cgroups than mounted file systems. That's an implementation detail
>> that is an irritant and could probably be fixed in util-linux.
>> On a single user or limited function server (e.g. lamp), there is little
>> need to track the processes started by a service. If those systems are
>> removed from the set of all Linux systems, how many are left? Being an
>> advocate of LFS, I am not in favor of one-size-fits-all.
> Ok, but what's the actual downside? Apart from the irritation of the
> mount command producing a bunch of noise, in what way is one-size *not*
> fitting all in this case?
> Because that's the thing I find missing from most of the arguments
> against it - actual concrete reasons why systemd is wrong for them. Most
> arguments are either philosphical (quoting Unix design principals), or
> just deranged ranting (hate its, hates it, want precious sysvinit).
The issue, as Fernando points out, is control. Who has control of the
process? The distro or the user? For sysv, the concept is easy to
understand, easy to modify. For systemd, the interactions between all
the components is complex and more difficult to change.
If I want the distro to control everything, then I can use Apple or MS.
More information about the blfs-support