In Soviet Russia Conservatives Obama *you*. FTFY. Beowulf cluster of Hitlers. Step 4 - Profit. MyCleanPc you insensitive clod. Global warming. Intertubes. Nuke them from orbit. Did I miss anything?
Natalie Portman and hot grits, or is that too last millenium?
My story: Been using Linux and BSD heavily since the 90s. I don't really care if you spell "restart foo" as "/etc/init.d/foo restart", "/usr/local/etc/rc.d/foo.sh restart" "service foo restart", "systemctl restart foo", or just "pkill foo && foo".
I spell "restart autofsd" as
$ cat
/System/Library/LaunchDaemons/com.apple.autofsd.plist
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE plist PUBLIC "-//Apple Computer//DTD PLIST 1.0//EN" "http://www.apple.com/DTDs/PropertyList-1.0.dtd">
<plist version="1.0">
<dict>
<key>Label</key>
<string>com.apple.autofsd</string>
<key>KeepAlive</key>
<true/>
<key>Program</key>
<string>/usr/libexec/autofsd</string>
<key>ProgramArguments</key>
<array>
<string>autofsd</string>
</array>
<key>EnableTransactions</key>
<true/>
</dict>
</plist>
which is the same way I spell "start autofsd in the first place".
you are speaking of different "dialects", it's a matter of apparence, not substance, a disk can be accessed as
not the case of systemd approach, that is "change everything at a substantial level, just because"
Apparently you didn't notice that they also talked about different flavors of "process 1", such as "traditional BSD init", "traditional System V init" (well, actually, they didn't even bother mentioning the latter), launchd, SMF (which they also didn't mention), launchd, systemd, etc....
Just want to point out that SMF may have been Slowaris' demise.
Or not.
Just saying there's a correleation.
Two data points (or, if Solaris isn't dying, one data point) and you declare a correlation?
One great thing about Unixen is how they share common interfaces.
Because they're all exactly the same at the system/process management level. There is no such thing as SMIT or SMF or two different flavors of traditional init or....
You are obviously demonstrating that you have no personal experience with systemd; systemd is a collection of tools
Could somebody then either rename the collection of tools to have a name that doesn't sound like the name of a UN*X daemon, or rename the tool in that collection that some Linux distributions run in process 1 to something other than "systemd", so that people don't confuse the collection of tools with the init-process tool in that collection? This might fix at least some of systemd's public relations problem.
(I mean, srsly, Apple's made some changes to "traditional UN*X", but they don't designate mDNSresponder or the ASL-version of syslogd or... as parts of the "launchd" project.)
It prevents regular user programs from masquerading as system services, which usually sit below port 1024.
$ sudo sh -c "id; echo \"Wanna bet?\""
uid=0(root) gid=0(wheel) groups=0(wheel),401(com.apple.access_screensharing),1(daemon),2(kmem),3(sys),4(tty),5(operator),8(procview),9(procmod),12(everyone),20(staff),29(certusers),33(_appstore),61(localaccounts),80(admin),98(_lpadmin),100(_lpoperator),204(_developer)
Wanna bet?
Seriously, once you have personal computer on a network, "reserved ports are available only to root" is, as noted, cargo-cult security.
And servers - do they still care about the servers?
Depends on which kinds. Macminis get used as servers. They are suddenly doing well with the MacPro. They have an excellent small business server product. Also remember they just recommitted to enterprise. Apple is very hard to read on this, but I think in general they would want to be able to support a server quickly not have a long lag.
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Apple to have 128-core enterprise servers, however.
Launchd is the young whippersnapper on the block. Solaris has had daemon administration for years.
I.e., since before late April 2005, as that's when OS X 10.5 Tiger, the first release with launchd, came out?
I think your objection is that they maintain all this stuff and distribute it as part of the same source tarball.
Is there some compelling reason for them to do so - and to stick "systemd-" in front of the names of a number of daemons? If nothing else, it could be bad public relations if it gives people the impression that the program whose name is "systemd" performs functions that, in other UN*Xes, are done by programs launched through the init process.
> The more you change that, the less interchangeable the various Unixen become.
A disadvantage for the user, an advantage for those selling linux systems.
Canonical tried to make Linux unique by messing up the UI level, RH tries with the most important item after the kernel, PID 1.
The hardware makers are all too happy about it because they don't like unix tools and ideas born in the 70s that offer old hardware an indefinite operative life.
As opposed to ideas born in the '80's, such as "every UN*X variant gets to do a few things differently from most of the other variants"; it sounds as if you're saying that Linux is reimplementing that idea amongst Linux distributions.
Except for the fact that you're talking about nuance.
Are the differences between BSD init+init.d scripts, System V init+SV init scripts, launchd and launch daemons/agents, Solaris SMF and whatever it uses, and systemd just "nuance"?
I wonder if they are some of the same people as these (reading about theiur team it does not sound unlikely): http://www.embedded.com/electronics-news/4397737/X86-emulation-coming-to-ARM-processors
Well, that link speaks of people from Elbrus, and this page from Eltechs' web site says "The MCST Binary Translation Team has 200+ man-year experience in developing binary translators. They implemented a number of x86 to e2k (a Russian CPU)". The "e2k" is probably the Elbrus 2000, for which they implemented an x86-to-native binary translator. The MCST (Moscow Center of SPARC Technologies) referred to by the Elbrus 2000 page is probably the same MCST referred to by the Eltechs page.
So, yes, probably the same people.
Modern developer do not deal with memory allocation anymore, but they work at a level of abstraction with design paradigms which are every bit as complex to grasp than hardware architecture.
I'm not the person who said that "Java schools are a menace" and that "you're really missing something if you don't have a good mental model of computers at the machine language level, and if you've never done any "bit bashing" (working with unsigned ints as arrays of bits, not as numbers)." - and then spoke of "pointer-array equvalency" as if it were a fundamental concept of how computers work at the low level rather than as an over-simplified description of a quirk of C and its derivatives (they're not equivalent - array-valued expressions evaluate as a pointer to the first element in the array in some, but not all, contexts),
Eww Octal??? My gosh, the PDP-11 is the purest of the pure! It is the excuse, the reason for Octal to exist!
No, octal was a much better fit for machines such as the PDP-6/PDP-10, PDP-5/PDP-8, and other multiple-of-6-bits-word-size machines. It worked well for PDP-11 instructions, not so well for PDP-11 data words if you cared about the individual bytes in the word.
"Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love." -- Albert Einstein
