systemd: please stop trying to take over the world :)

[Denys Vlasenko]

On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 13:30 -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > > What's the problem of having a specific hostname set up at boot time?
> > 
> > The problem with having specific hostname I had is when I boot many
> > dozens of diskless machines off the very same network filesystem,
> > I definitely DONT want them to use the same hostname.
> 
> But until you can get "the real one" you basically are.

Yes, and as far as it is a temporary condition for a few seconds at
boot, it's not a problem. So why the rush to set it as soon as possible
via systemd?

> > One method I saw in use in real world in this situation is to assign
> > hostnames by looking up (MAC_address,hostname) pairs in a database (say,
> > a config file), and then set the found hostname. Of course, this is not
> > possible until said database is available over network.
> 
> In this case you are not better/worse than before, once the network will
> come up you'll add a script to change the hostname.
> Setting it earlier in systemd makes no difference.

You continue to avoid answering my question: WHY systemd, a service
management tool, bothers with setting hostname? It's not its task!

I wouldn't bother much if it would be just one tiny bit of strange code
in systemd, but it is FAR from being the only such code. There are lots
of similar stuff, and it's not accidental.

Look at Lennart's presentation:


Slide 6:
"We can now boot a system shell-free"

IOW: shell is bad, my new shiny toy is good.


Slide 14:
"systemd is an Init System"
"systemd is a Platform"

systemd is a platform? Really? What next? systemd is an Aircraft
Carrier? More to the point: Lennart can call his program whatever he
wants, even Nuclear Submarine. The point is: some people might disagree
with having service management tool with Napoleonic aspirations. For
one, I do!


Slide 50:
"Shell is evil"
"Move to systemd, daemons, kernel, udev, ..."

Again, shell, a tool which endured for 40+ years, is suddenly "evil".
I don't think this being the consensus.


Slide 79:
"Substantial coverage of basic OS boot-up tasks, including fsck,
mount, quota, hwclock, readahead, tmpfiles, random-seed, console,
static module loading, early syslog, plymouth, shutdown, kexec,
SELinux, initrd+initrd-less boots, cryptsetup, ..."


That's what I refer to by "taking over the world".

Note that neither slides, nor this email thread produced an explanation
WHY all this stuff is thrown together into one project.
I mean, really, look at the list. Readahead? Random seed saving?!
Plymouth?!?!

What's going on here???

-- 
vda