Re: What is the philosophy behind shepherd?

[Adam Pribyl <pribyl@lowlevel.cz>]

Shepherd is more like (sysv)init system, what's different is it is in 
guile, ie. you may easily extended or script it like you did with init via 
bash and like you can not with systemd because systemd only allows 
ComplicatedSetOfPredefinedCrypticWordsToDoAnything.

To my experience systemd is good as long as you do not hit anything 
authors did not considered important to take care of. Latest hit:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1665931


On Sat, 6 Apr 2019, Katherine Cox-Buday wrote:

> 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
> -- 
> Katherine
>
>