Systemd redux: The end of Linux

Re:Systemd redux: The end of Linux by zanny on Thursday November 20, 2014 @10:16PM (#8639629)

I've had huge productivity gains with unit files for systemd over trying to write spaghetti shell code for old sysv. The syntax and features are well documented and writing them is extremely simple. I also don't believe any sysv implementation had crash recovery or socket activation of daemons, both of which are huge feature wins.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Systemd redux: The end of Linux by nitrogen on Friday November 21, 2014 @03:59AM (#8640438)

I also don't believe any sysv implementation had crash recovery or socket activation of daemons, both of which are huge feature wins.

That's because there were other components handling those tasks, like inetd and /etc/inittab. I do like having Upstart handle respawning for me, though.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Systemd redux: The end of Linux by icebraining on Friday November 21, 2014 @04:54AM (#8640562)

Inetd only did TCP socket activation, not of unix sockets, though.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Systemd redux: The end of Linux by thwarted on Saturday November 22, 2014 @02:55AM (#8645098)

Inetd only did TCP socket activation, not of unix sockets, though.

False.

http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/hardy/man8/inetd.8.html

    The service name entry is the name of a valid service in the file
    /etc/services. … For UNIX domain sockets this field specifies the
    path name of the socket.


    The protocol must be a valid protocol as given in /etc/protocols.
    Examples might be “unix”, “tcp” or “udp”. … A protocol of “unix”
    is used to specify a socket in the UNIX domain.

xinetd does not appear to support this feature.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Systemd redux: The end of Linux by icebraining on Saturday November 22, 2014 @03:42AM (#8645149)

Oops, you're right, I misread an article about socket activation.

[ Parent | on HN ]