@angristan

> systemd-tmpfiles

Someone made a comment on Lobsters on "Why do we need an abstraction layer around mktemp()?" It's this kinda crazy expansion for thinks that already exist (and exist well, and don't need dependency mapping) that really is the crux of the systemd issue.

I do like the BSDCan talk about why a system layer is good, and I do see where Linux/BSD can benefit from a solid system layer. I just think systemd is not a good system layer at all.

@djsumdog @angristan but is that really a good comparison? mktemp only lets you create directories, and load the list from configs, but you need other thing to fire it up on boot or on a give time, while tmpfiles not only lets you create directories, but also empty them and creating/writting files.

I think having some system layers shared between distros is a good thing, the only problem is that systemd is the only one right now, and that's because there aren't other people interested on doing that

@dirb @angristan I honestly haven't looked at the systemd tempfile module; I really should before commenting.

There have been attempts at drop-in replacements for systemd like uselessd; but they've all been mostly abandoned.

I also feel like there will be less demand for system layers with all the containerization stuff. RancherOS runs docker as init! Your shell is a container as well. It's crazy.

@djsumdog @angristan I think they would still be relevant. those system abstractions are mostly targeted to developers and sysadmins, some containers solutions are already built on that
Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!