[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       nix-dev
Subject:    Re: [Nix-dev] How to get rid of systemd (was: Modifying the init system (introducing S6 supervision 
From:       Colin Putney <colin () wiresong ! com>
Date:       2014-12-29 17:10:04
Message-ID: CAD+=c1jRx7Vnp_8ygB_NJjj3nrSfkTtz6HeC1+8NCUuv+8W7mg () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]


On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Ertugrul S=C3=B6ylemez <ertesx@gmx.de> wr=
ote:

> Hi Colin,
>
> > This sounds a lot like Disnix! How would it be similar? How would it
> > be different?
>
> Disnix and NixOps are machine-oriented.  You have a network of machines
> with configurations.  The goal is a service-oriented architecture.
> Every service itself is a "machine", and those machines can be combined
> to larger machines.
>

Yeah, that's certainly true of Nixops. My understanding of Disnix, though,
is that it let's you describe, separately, services in the abstract,
machines available for running them, and the deployment of abstract
services onto the physical machines.

Disnix seems to be dead, though, so even if what you're proposing is very
similar, it would be a big improvement on the current state of the art.

-Colin

[Attachment #5 (text/html)]

<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Dec \
28, 2014 at 11:11 PM, Ertugrul Söylemez <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a \
href="mailto:ertesx@gmx.de" target="_blank">ertesx@gmx.de</a>&gt;</span> \
wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px \
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi Colin,<br> <span class=""><br>
&gt; This sounds a lot like Disnix! How would it be similar? How would it<br>
&gt; be different?<br>
<br>
</span>Disnix and NixOps are machine-oriented.   You have a network of machines<br>
with configurations.   The goal is a service-oriented architecture.<br>
Every service itself is a &quot;machine&quot;, and those machines can be combined<br>
to larger machines.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yeah, that&#39;s certainly \
true of Nixops. My understanding of Disnix, though, is that it let&#39;s you \
describe, separately, services in the abstract, machines available for running them, \
and the deployment of abstract services onto the physical machines.  \
</div><div><br></div><div>Disnix seems to be dead, though, so even if what you&#39;re \
proposing is very similar, it would be a big improvement on the current state of the \
art.</div><div><br></div><div>-Colin  </div></div></div></div>



_______________________________________________
nix-dev mailing list
nix-dev@lists.science.uu.nl
http://lists.science.uu.nl/mailman/listinfo/nix-dev


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]