Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Busybox removes support for systemd

git.busybox.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 203 posts

Re: Busybox removes support for systemd

#31

Post by bigbugbag »

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #24
_cudgel wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd also like an answer to this question, as well as an answer to the question of what, in exacting detail please, was so wrong with the previous system it needed to be torn out and replaced? I definitely tend toward the curmudgeonly, but to this grumpy old man, it seems like we're replacing things simply for the sake of change.

Nah, the old system did need replacing [1], and plenty of them were in fact done. [2] Evidently they went understudied, though. [1] http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/sy... [2] http://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2015/09/05/0/

it did, but systemd is not the silver bullet that will fix it.

"It's often said that a half-truth is worse than a lie. In the case of systemd, a half-improvement is worse than a complete flop. People are focusing on the features they want to use and ignoring the ones that will come back to bite them later.

No, my biggest problem with systemd is that it is repeating the mistakes of System V all over again. It's just given them a change of clothes to appeal to the 21st century."

rest the rest at: http://www.steven-mcdonald.id.au/articles/systemd.shtml

for the debunking of the necessity of having journald see http://lpar.ath0.com/2014/05/18/why-i-dont-like-systemd/

Re: Busybox removes support for systemd

#32

Post by vezzy-fnord »

bigbugbag wrote: post #31
vezzy-fnord wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, the old system did need replacing [1], and plenty of them were in fact done. [2] Evidently they went understudied, though. [1] http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/sy... [2] http://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2015/09/05/0/

it did, but systemd is not the silver bullet that will fix it. "It's often said that a half-truth is worse than a lie. In the case of systemd, a half-improvement is worse than a complete flop. People are focusing on the features they want to use and ignoring the ones that will come back to bite them later. No, my biggest problem with systemd is that it is repeating the mistakes of System V all over again. It's just g…

I wrote the first full scale technical critique of systemd, so you don't have to tell me all that. I've read the articles, btw.

Re: Busybox removes support for systemd

#33

Post by MichaelGG »

rincebrain wrote: post #28
MichaelGG wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I don't get is, if systemd is so troublesome, why are so many distros picking it up? I know popularity isn't a perfect signal, but in this case of highly technical users that are distributing OSes it seems valid.

Part of the reason is that systemd has absorbed functionality of a number of additional pieces of software, to the point that they are no longer maintained discretely - udev being the best example. Another part of the reason is that Red Hat forcibly landed systemd in Fedora and then RHEL7, and RH is an elephant on the scale of Linux development.

So RedHat's choices impact Debian/Ubuntu, Arch, and SUSE so much? Honest question; I don't know the details. Or are you saying that distros rely on other components that are simply not feasible (maintained) anymore, so they have no choice?

Just seems like if it's as bad as so many say, it just doesn't make sense for all these distros to blindly go along. Even the GNOME lockin doesn't seem like it'd explain it.

Re: Busybox removes support for systemd

#34

Post by felixgallo »

magila wrote: post #29
semi-extrinsic wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

After they repurposed the "debug" kernel flag and made it literally unusable with systemd, Linus banned one of their core devs (Kay Sievers) from contributing to the Linux kernel, and I quote: "I'm not willing to merge something where the maintainer is known to not care about bugs and regressions and then forces people in other projects to fix their project." https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/4/2/420

It's worth noting that this is a case of Linus flying off the handle based on incomplete information. It was latter revealed that the bug which caused this whole spat on LKML had already been fixed in systemd, Kay Sievers just failed to communicate that in the bug opened by Borislav Petkov.

that is not at all what happened. Here's Kay Sievers, defiantly posting after in his own words after the incident: https://plus.google.com/+KaySievers/posts/3cWXzYqB6MB

Re: Busybox removes support for systemd

#35

Post by bigbugbag »

xyproto wrote: post #20
GFK_of_xmaspast wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's fashionable in some parts of the linux world to hate on systemd.

After Arch Linux, Debian, Fedora, Red Hat and CentOS switched over to systemd, it must be a very tiny part of the Linux world.

Arch linux spawned a distro called manjaro which leads the way on not joining the systemd bandwagon. Debian got forked into devuan which is debian minus systemd. As systemd originated from redhat it is expected that the other faces of redhat namely fedora and centos would also feature systemd.

Then there is slackware, gentoo, pclinuxos that either did not bit the systemd bullet or offer alternative option. Not sure about ubuntu.

Re: Busybox removes support for systemd

#36

Post by jlgaddis »

xyproto wrote: post #20
GFK_of_xmaspast wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's fashionable in some parts of the linux world to hate on systemd.

After Arch Linux, Debian, Fedora, Red Hat and CentOS switched over to systemd, it must be a very tiny part of the Linux world.

There are plenty of users of those distributions (sysadmins) who aren't happy about the switch to systemd but, for various reasons, are stuck with it.

Fortunately for me, I'm not one of them.

Re: Busybox removes support for systemd

#37

Post by bigbugbag »

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #32
bigbugbag wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it did, but systemd is not the silver bullet that will fix it. "It's often said that a half-truth is worse than a lie. In the case of systemd, a half-improvement is worse than a complete flop. People are focusing on the features they want to use and ignoring the ones that will come back to bite them later. No, my biggest problem with systemd is that it is repeating the mistakes of System V all over again. It's just g…

I wrote the first full scale technical critique of systemd, so you don't have to tell me all that. I've read the articles, btw.

Sorry if I have bothered you, I wasn't replying directly to you but was actually aiming at adding a complement to your answer.

Re: Busybox removes support for systemd

#38

Post by erpellan »

PID 1 should be boring. Tiny, simple and boring. Any software project that raises this much controversy should be looked at with a raised eyebrow.

A software project this large, complex, controversial and coupled that wants to be PID 1? Absolutely no way.

Re: Busybox removes support for systemd

#39

Post by bigbugbag »

tym0 wrote: post #3

> systemd people are not willing to play nice with the rest of the world. Can we get a bit a of context on that?

there was extensive documentation on www.boycottsystemd.org but it seems to have been taken offline and there's no trace in the internet archive.

Re: Busybox removes support for systemd

#40

Post by vezzy-fnord »

MichaelGG wrote: post #33
rincebrain wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the reason is that systemd has absorbed functionality of a number of additional pieces of software, to the point that they are no longer maintained discretely - udev being the best example. Another part of the reason is that Red Hat forcibly landed systemd in Fedora and then RHEL7, and RH is an elephant on the scale of Linux development.

So RedHat's choices impact Debian/Ubuntu, Arch, and SUSE so much? Honest question; I don't know the details. Or are you saying that distros rely on other components that are simply not feasible (maintained) anymore, so they have no choice? Just seems like if it's as bad as so many say, it just doesn't make sense for all these distros to blindly go along. Even the GNOME lockin doesn't seem like it'd explain it.

Debian isn't really a leader. They're more of a passive target platform and their committee has people from various strokes of the Linux community. As such, RH decisions with significant influence definitely would impact them. Ubuntu, in turn, is symbiotic with Debian, though still quite forked from it in most aspects beyond the packaging infrastructure (now with Snappy diverging even further). Nonetheless, Unity needs GNOME and Canonical are still a small player who are perfectly capable of foreseeing future trends. Adopting systemd is the path of least resistance and will help them track Debian's packages better.

Most RPM-based distros (openSUSE included) tend to follow RH's direction, so that's not surprising. Besides, SUSE has always been enthusiastic about most desktop efforts.

Arch Linux have at least two systemd developers on their team (Tom Gundersen and Dave Reisner). In fact, it was tomegun who wrote the Arch migration rationale: https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1149530#p1149530, based on the usual fallacious arguments (http://judecnelson.blogspot.com/2014/09/systemd-biggest-fall...).

Also, distros have blindly went along with other bad ideas before. The most prominent examples were HALd and LSB-style initscripts.

In fact, I'm not sure why you're at all surprised. Large groups of people in real life have collectively made far, far more catastrophic decisions. Why would a bunch of distribution maintainers adopting a piece of software be so shocking?

Post reply on HN