Gentoo uses OpenRC by default. Sent from my iPhone > On Sep 30, 2016, at 3:26 PM, Anon Anon wrote: > > What flavor of Linux currently doesn't use systemd? > > >> On Sep 30, 2016 11:58, "Joseph Sinclair" wrote: >> Responses Inline: >> >> > [snip] >> > >> >> SystemD should be restricted to it's INIT >> >> functions, dump the horrible non-standard logging, drop all of the >> >> service replacements (or spin them into separate services), and get >> >> laser-focused on getting that INIT service bullet-proof, >> > >> > But if systemd were restricted to PID1 plus a process starter, what >> > would differentiate it from very nice INITs like runit, s6, and Epoch? >> >> Quality code, simple design, and/or security could differentiate. >> If none of those applies, then the community should choose the alternative that does offer those things. >> In my opinion, systemd does have some very good features in it's core function space, it just has some major implementation and kitchen-sink issues that need to be fixed. >> >> > [snip] >> > >> >> I think the entire RedHat organization (and the professional >> >> open-source community in general) might need a refresher course on >> >> operating system design, particularly focusing on microkernel >> >> architectures and the how/why those are inherently more secure (also >> >> why the tradeoffs involved don't work as well in Ring-0 kernel space >> >> as they do in Ring-3 user space). >> > >> > This would be counterproductive for Redhat. Please remember they make >> > their money on consulting, certs and education: Three services that >> > lose value as the underlying system becomes easier to use and >> > comprehend. Read >> > http://asay.blogspot.ru/2006/10/interview-with-red-hat-cto-brian.html >> > and search for the first occurrence of the word "complexity" and you'll >> > hear, straight from the horse's mouth, why they'll never make systemd a >> > simple PID1 plus process runner. >> >> I am well aware that the corporate incentive militates against doing what's best in the case of systemd. >> There is nothing, however, that requires systemd be exclusively or even significantly driven by Red Hat, the community is completely free to fork and fix the project. >> The Linux community (of which Red Hat is only a small part) has a responsibility to itself to reject or repair overly complex and insecure solutions to the needs of a modern operating system. >> There are already projects underway in various places that begin to address these concerns, and the natural self-interest of the community will tend to bring those to the forefront, absent external interference. >> Red Hat will, eventually, either recognize the constraint (do what's best for the community or the community will go elsewhere) or cease to exist; both outcomes are eminently reasonable and beneficial. >> >> I have no desire to tell Red Hat how to run their business, and they shouldn't listen to me if I did. >> The quoted paragraph is more of a recognition of a common technology blindspot that happens to manifest in Red Hat's organization (and applies to the systemd design issues) than a prescription for action. >> >> Note, I don't pretend to have the time or skill to fix systemd either. I just made some observations that, if it's bad enough (and it might be), there could be enough interested entities who do have time and skill to fix the problem. >> >> > >> > SteveT >> > >> >> ==Joseph++ >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------- >> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org >> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: >> http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss > --------------------------------------------------- > PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: > http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss