Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 22:57:18 +0300 From: gremlin@...mlin.ru To: owl-users@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: owl-startup On 2014-12-21 07:39:10 +0300, (GalaxyMaster) wrote: >> While working with one project, I faced the inconvenience caused >> by ancient init scripts in owl-startup (once again). However, >> this time I had several hours to perform some rewrite... > What would help a lot (and possibly create more traction) is > providing some rationale behind the rewrite. 1. All possible network configurations 2. Support for loopback/cryptoloop (including trivial `umount -a -rdf`) Of course, some other minor issues were fixed by the way. > The way you did it is like "here is a cat in a box: you may try > to play with it but your mileage may vary". Yes, as it's exactly that. And my FTP server logs show that people are really interested in such experimental packages. > After such a proposal, personally, I don't have any desire to > try my luck. You aren't requred to do that: although your feedback could be really valuable, for now I'd be quite happy with functionality tests - that's why I've posted this to -users@ > On a side note, I would never imagine that I'd raise it here > and be a proponent of it, but here it comes: should we start > working toward integrating systemd into Owl? Not earlier than at least the following packages would be updated || added: * kernel * openssh * pkgconfig * nginx * httpd (with full LAMP stack) * rsync * qemu In general, these suggestions should go to -dev@, but once you've started this discussion in -users@ - well, it would be fine to let our users know what we're working on. Several more words on Qemu: as Owl is really minimalistic system, it just perfectly suits the position of virtualization host. That means, we could move in this direction and be in-trend. > Over the last 6 months I was kind of "forced" to work extensively > with distros that switched to systemd. To do my job properly I > had to learn the design of that framework and it really looks > logical and once you jump through the hoops of the learning curve > you cannot deny that Poettering and Co did a huge amount of work > to standardise the startup & init process. The documentation is > also _very_ good. Personally I see only one application for systemd: when you make the system a bloatware, it starts up very slowly, and the systemd attempts to speed it up. Owl with its' two hundred packages starts in 10...15 seconds, so it's hardly a bloatware and doesn't need the systemd. > Sooner or later we will face the fact that we should decide > whether we go with the trend or make our own path. However, > knowing our limited resources I doubt that we are going very > successful with the latter. Opinions? Actually, we've already made our choise: keep small, secure and effective, using OpenVZ as a task separation technique (instead of selinux etc). Just adding Qemu/KVM support (which I'm working on) will make it the complete virtualization solution, supporting both VPSes and VDSes. -- Alexey V. Vissarionov aka Gremlin from Kremlin <gremlin ПРИ gremlin ТЧК ru> GPG: 8832FE9FA791F7968AC96E4E909DAC45EF3B1FA8 @ hkp://keys.gnupg.net Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.