There is no reason the creation of privileged sessions should depend on a particular init system. It's fairly obvious that is a bad idea from a software design perspective. The only architectural reason to build it like that is because so many distros already include systemd, so they don't have to worry about getting people to adopt this (incidentally, that's the same reason Microsoft tried to deeply embed the browser in their OS.....remember active desktop?)
If there are any systemd fans out there, I would love to hear them justify this from an architectural perspective.
Poettering is following the philosophy that has created nearly every piece of bloated software that is in existence today: the design is not complete unless there is nothing more than can be added. Bloated software feeds upon the constant influx of new features, regardless of whether those new features are appropriate or not. They are new therefore they are justified.
. You know you have achieved perfection in design, not when you have nothing more to add, but when you have nothing more to take away. -- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
There is no reason the creation of privileged sessions should depend on a particular init system. It's fairly obvious that is a bad idea from a software design perspective. The only architectural reason to build it like that is because so many distros already include systemd, so they don't have to worry about getting people to adopt this (incidentally, that's the same reason Microsoft tried to deeply embed the browser in their OS.....remember active desktop?)
If there are any systemd fans out there, I would love to hear them justify this from an architectural perspective.
Modern Linux does not have one namespace common to every session. Instead, different sessions and processes can have different namespaces for PIDs, mounts, hostname, users etc, and things like cgroups and security capabilities are also no longer common. This is part of getting containers to work correctly. Clearly, if you want a "true" root session, you don't just need to change UID and GID but you also need these other session parameters to be adjusted appropriately. Getting this to work properly needs co-
Getting this to work properly needs co-operation from the process that is orchestrating the different namespaces - the init system.
It's only in the systemd architecture that the init system is the component that manages all flavours of namespace. Therefore your argument is circular.
"There is no reason the creation of privileged sessions should depend on a particular init system." are you saying no-one can write anything that helps themselves if they have a reason to do so? If he'd deprecated "su"/"sudo" them you'll you'll have a valid question.
The road to ruin is always in good repair, and the travellers pay the
expense of it.
-- Josh Billings
quality engineering (Score:4, Insightful)
If there are any systemd fans out there, I would love to hear them justify this from an architectural perspective.
Re:quality engineering (Score:5, Insightful)
.
You know you have achieved perfection in design, not when you have nothing more to add, but when you have nothing more to take away.
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Re: (Score:2)
You know you have achieved perfection in design, not when you have nothing more to add, but when you have nothing more to take away.
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
Love that quote.
Re: (Score:2)
I think he knows the quote but misunderstands it.
You know when SystemD has achieved perfection in design when there is nothing to take away from the rest of the system.
Re: (Score:1)
There is no reason the creation of privileged sessions should depend on a particular init system. It's fairly obvious that is a bad idea from a software design perspective. The only architectural reason to build it like that is because so many distros already include systemd, so they don't have to worry about getting people to adopt this (incidentally, that's the same reason Microsoft tried to deeply embed the browser in their OS.....remember active desktop?)
If there are any systemd fans out there, I would love to hear them justify this from an architectural perspective.
Modern Linux does not have one namespace common to every session. Instead, different sessions and processes can have different namespaces for PIDs, mounts, hostname, users etc, and things like cgroups and security capabilities are also no longer common. This is part of getting containers to work correctly. Clearly, if you want a "true" root session, you don't just need to change UID and GID but you also need these other session parameters to be adjusted appropriately. Getting this to work properly needs co-
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It's only in the systemd architecture that the init system is the component that manages all flavours of namespace. Therefore your argument is circular.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)