From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christopher Lemmer Webber Subject: Re: What is the philosophy behind shepherd? Date: Sat, 06 Apr 2019 19:08:55 -0400 Message-ID: <87a7h2buk8.fsf@dustycloud.org> References: <87o95jlyo0.fsf@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:50415) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hCuQl-000424-Rr for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Apr 2019 19:09:00 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hCuQk-0001jT-5R for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Apr 2019 19:08:59 -0400 Received: from dustycloud.org ([2600:3c02::f03c:91ff:feae:cb51]:34252) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hCuQj-0001io-VT for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 06 Apr 2019 19:08:58 -0400 In-reply-to: <87o95jlyo0.fsf@gmail.com> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: Katherine Cox-Buday Cc: guix-devel@gnu.org Katherine Cox-Buday writes: > I must preface this email with the assurance that there is no agenda > behind my questions; only ignorance and curiosity. Please read it with > that in mind! > > A couple weeks ago, I was watching a video called "The Tragedy of > Systemd"[1]. In it, Benno Rice discusses the need for a so-called > "system layer" which is responding to the many complicated signals > coming into a system from thing happening (e.g. networks becoming > available/unavailable, VPNs mucking with DNS and routing tables, etc.). > He characterizes systemd and things like it as something that lives > between kernel-space and user-space. > > It really opened my eyes to why something like systemd exists rather > than sticking with the old-style init systems. > > Does Shepherd take the stance that it is, or is to become a "system > layer"? > > If so, one of the criticisms he has for systemd is that instead of > pulling in protocols for things (e.g. DNS), and allowing best-of-breed > software to handle the implementation, it has pulled in the > responsibility for implementation as well. Any thoughts on that? > > [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_AIw9bGogo I think one interesting thing, to me, is that I agree that this is desirable, but I think a microkernel + services approach would be much better architecture. In such a world then shepherd's role would be to bootstrap the key services needed to talk to each other. In other words, I think systemd exists in many ways to make up for the limitations of a monolithic kernel approach. In that way, it makes sense, but I think we could do better with a different fundamental infrastructure. But maybe I am wrong! - Chris