Busybox removes support for systemd • Hacker News Board

Re: Busybox removes support for systemd

#61

Post by digi_owl » Sun, Nov 01, 2015, 1:11 AM UTC

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #21

SFjulie1 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's one of the critics of open source (BSD) world versus free software world. GNU /Linux projects have been designed for figthing on socio-ethico-political grounds against proprietary software. The first one being Unix. (GNU's Not Unix) On the other hand, BSD prefers to see itself like a community of pragmatism, and creating values in business by sharing externalities (plus a bunch of fanatics that loves nice code…

My interpretation is a tad more charitable. The reason the Linux community is so dysfunctional is because, for most people born during a certain time period, it's the first ever OS they use that isn't Windows, and the first ever Unix. Naturally this creates a lot of sudden revelations, and a lot of blowhards who think they're hot because they can rice their Arch Linux box. In the process a lot of false sense of techn…

As something of an aside:

http://digest.bps.org.uk/2015/10/feeling-like-youre-expert-c...

Re: Busybox removes support for systemd

#62

Post by AdmiralACK » Sun, Nov 01, 2015, 1:11 AM UTC

Good. Systemd can die. Debian should never have started using them, too.

Re: Busybox removes support for systemd

#63

Post by woofiefa » Sun, Nov 01, 2015, 1:12 AM UTC

I really like systemd because all the controversy made me look towards FreeBSD, and this has really been a great experience. No offense, but I can't stop thinking about the Linux community as a screaming child with short attention span. The BSD community seems more like an old grey beard, sitting calmly in the corner solving problems in the best way possible. This may take some time but the result is often superior.

Re: Busybox removes support for systemd

#64

Post by cosarara97 » Sun, Nov 01, 2015, 1:15 AM UTC

AdmiralACK wrote: post #62

Good. Systemd can die. Debian should never have started using them, too.

There is plenty of people happy with debian's adoption of systemd, myself included.

Re: Busybox removes support for systemd

#65

Post by voidfunc » Sun, Nov 01, 2015, 1:15 AM UTC

MichaelGG wrote: post #19

runarb wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is some controversy about Systemd and Lennart Poettering, one of the main developers. Wikipedia have more info: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemd#History_and_controvers... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lennart_Poettering#Controversi...

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.

It's actually a pretty good system and IMO way better than previous attempts at init systems throughout Linux history.

Re: Busybox removes support for systemd

#66

Post by digi_owl » Sun, Nov 01, 2015, 1:21 AM UTC

gaius wrote: post #57

felixgallo wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The fact that this is posted on Google+ and not LKML says it all really.

The place have become something of a second home for a lot of Linux related devs. One potential problem with that is that the poster is free to delete any and all comments made to his posts.

Re: Busybox removes support for systemd

#67

Post by vezzy-fnord » Sun, Nov 01, 2015, 1:21 AM UTC

voidfunc wrote: post #65

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.

It's actually a pretty good system and IMO way better than previous attempts at init systems throughout Linux history.

Considering there's been ~15 of them, I doubt anyone has ever evaluated them comprehensively except post facto in light of the systemd integration.

Re: Busybox removes support for systemd

#68

Post by dredmorbius » Sun, Nov 01, 2015, 1:23 AM UTC

felixgallo wrote: post #34

magila wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

NB: 404 on that link.

Re: Busybox removes support for systemd

#69

Post by mgbmtl » Sun, Nov 01, 2015, 1:23 AM UTC

sulami wrote: post #23

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.

I'm just guessing here, but systemd makes some things more convinient by being overall more monolithic, like Windows, and especially distros that are targeting a less technical crowd want to be able to compete with Windows in terms of features and usability. Non-technical people most likely don't see any of the beauty of a strictly modular system or proper clean code. And this is not about the init-daemon, it is abou…

I'm more tempted to say that systemd does well what previously you needed a dozen half-broken tools to implement.

For example, isolating the /tmp of an application, monitoring the process and restarting if necessary, more logging options (and imho cleaner/more efficient).

Then again, all this has been debated over and over again. In practice, people are adopting it. Haters are noisy. It's like reading about debates on IPv6 migration strategies.

Re: Busybox removes support for systemd

#70

Post by api » Sun, Nov 01, 2015, 1:28 AM UTC

erpellan wrote: post #38

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.

I've come around to being a systemd skeptic too after initially supporting it. It's just so over engineered, confusing, hard to use. Today in the age of user experience anything that wants to replace the (also ugly) old init should be a huge step forward and a breath of fresh air. We're replacing bash nastiness with over engineered "enterprisey" nastiness.