Comment by bonzini
3 months ago
> resolved, networkd, timesyncd
None of these are mandatory though. It's up to the distros whether to use them. For example at this point resolved is pretty commonly enabled by default, networkd not at all, and timesyncd is perhaps 50-50 with chrony.
Yes, but not using those seems to defeat the point of using systemd.
The most convincing advocacy I have seen for systemd (by a BSD developer, its fairly well known) is that it provides an extra layer of the OS (on top of the kernel) to standardise things.
> Yes, but not using those seems to defeat the point of using systemd.
I don't see how it defeats the point - it still nice init / services manager, it still provide features say sysvinit couldn't do at all for my _services_ and management/lifecycle of services.
How often I tackle with resolved or networkd or timesyncd - not even sure, may be once a 2-3 months, while systemd-as-service-manager I do almost every day.
Mind providing some example on your setup/cases?
If you don't use them, you still have a standardized way of managing system services, including scheduled batch jobs. The other services are a convenient and integrated way of getting a basic version of that functionality, but they are by no means the entire point of systemd.
At this point, I am willing to believe the point of systemd is to be the new way to do anything. "If you want to talk to the kernel, go through me".
It's a new (ill specified, non standard) runtime to target. It's like what Win32 is to the raw NTDLL, or the dotnet or Java API. It hides the OS.
4 replies →
Of course. That standardized way is runsvdir, yes?
1 reply →