|
|
|
|
|
by awilfox
896 days ago
|
|
The monoculture problem is one that I really tried to cover in the article, indeed. While I do agree that a "super server" listening to the network could be a new (or old, with (x)inetd) concern, a well-written and well-designed pid1 doing this isn't much more risky than having the services manage themselves. The listener could/should be just as unprivileged as the target daemon, nominally using the same uid/groups and root directory as the target as well. And indeed, systemd's .socket files support the same environment control variables (User=, Group=, SupplementaryGroups=, RootDirectory=, WorkingDirectory=, et al) that services do. So that boils down to "are people writing socket activation units correctly", which is probably "no", but could be "yes". |
|
The issue is that the previous "multi-culture" really sucked real bad. It was a shit show, really.
systemd is rising the bar by A LOT in terms of systems management, and most alternatives are simply not keeping up.
But can you really blame it on systemd making a stellar job on its own?
If anything, we could blame it on the "alternative projects" doing a fairly poor job and delivering very little.
edit: systemd is so good that FreeBSD people have already started pondering if they should build something similar for themselves: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_AIw9bGogo