• infeeeee@lemm.ee
    4·
    12 days ago

    They have an example service on the website:

    (define sshd
  (service
    '(sshd ssh-daemon)                ;the secure shell daemon
    #:start (make-inetd-constructor   ;start on demand
             '("/usr/sbin/sshd" "-D" "-i")
             (list (endpoint
                    (make-socket-address AF_INET INADDR_ANY 22))
                   (endpoint
                    (make-socket-address AF_INET6 IN6ADDR_ANY 22)))
             #:max-connections 10)
    #:stop (make-inetd-destructor)
    #:respawn? #t))

(register-services (list sshd))
(start-in-the-background '(sshd))

    Let’s see how the same service looks like with systemd:

    [Unit]
Description=OpenSSH Daemon
Wants=sshdgenkeys.service
After=sshdgenkeys.service
After=network.target

[Service]
Type=notify-reload
ExecStart=/usr/bin/sshd -D
KillMode=process
Restart=always

[Install]
WantedBy=multi-user.target

    I have some lisp knowledge, so the scheme version doesn’t look frightening to me, but I guess for sysadmins, who should write these kind of files frequently systemd’s TOML like language is much more easier to understand.

    Some differences I see: Shepherd does some firewall management with ports, and I don’t see the services it depends on.

    Why this kind of files should be written in a programming language at all? I guess it’s a remnant from the old times, but I like when tools abstract away the programming parts, and users shouldn’t have to deal with that. I like the same thing in docker-compose: I can configure a program whatever language it’s written, I don’t have to deal with what’s happening under the hood.

    I guess there is some usefulness with defining services as code, if you need more complex situations, but it should the more rare case nowadays.

    • devfuuu@lemmy.world
      2·
      12 days ago

      For as much as I want to like and learn guix, guile and all that stuff, it’s very very ugly and confusing. I even have a book around for scheme and the parentheses and ’ and # in a bunch of places scare me too much and make no sense.

      It’s a system and language that doesn’t work well with more basic editors and tooling and unfortunately for how cool it is I don’t guess it will ever catch on for multiple reasons.

    • deadcream@sopuli.xyz
      0·
      12 days ago

      Some differences I see: Shepherd does some firewall management with ports, and I don’t see the services it depends on.

      That looks like it sets up sshd to start when someone connect to its port, not on boot. You can do the same with systemd, but you need additional .socket unit that will configure how .service unit is activated.

      Why this kind of files should be written in a programming language at all? I guess it’s a remnant from the old times, but I like when tools abstract away the programming parts, and users shouldn’t have to deal with that

      Systemd invents its own configuration language (it looks like ini but there no standard for that and systemd’s flavor is its own) so you still need to learn it.

      • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
        4·
        10 days ago

        Yes but as a somewhat layperson (electronics engineer and light firmware design, and some hobby sysadmin stuff), I can learn systemd’s “language” in 30 minutes and most attributes are so self evident that you can puzzle them together without learning the language at all.

        That Shepherd mess I would have no idea what to change to make a small tweak without spending hours and hours learning it because it is written extremely cryptically in comparison.

        It’s the difference between modifying a config with human readable names and having to go into the source code to change heavily abbreviated variables that require a lot of background knowledge to even read.

      • infeeeee@lemm.ee
        1·
        12 days ago

        Systemd invents its own configuration language (it looks like ini but there no standard for that and systemd’s flavor is its own) so you still need to learn it.

        Yeah, but it’s much more straightforward and less exotic than scheme. But I guess this type of configuration fits perfectly in Guix, where everything is already configured similarly.