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

101–110 of 203 posts

Re: Busybox removes support for systemd

#101

Post by e12e »

otterley wrote: post #81
bossrat wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you are exactly on point. the unix way is simplicity and transparency. systemd is complex and opaque. it's ok to have systemd's goals, but an additional goal should be "not a huge monolith"

What is the criteria by which you classify something as "opaque"? The documentation for systemd and its utilities is second to none.

> The documentation for systemd and its utilities is second to none.

  $ man none
  No manual entry for none
Sounds about right.

Re: Busybox removes support for systemd

#102

Post by ymse »

throw23000 wrote: post #98

I have to make this comment with a throwaway as its related to my previous job. Leaving aside the technical issues the launch of systemd 'looks' very much like a playbook PR campaign designed to push through something unpopular. The discrediting debates, labeling near abuse and mockery of opponents, appeals to authority and exaggerated consensus do not look accidental. This has all the markings of a sophisticated cam…

How is this related to anything, let alone your job?

As I'm sure you know, systemd grew out of Red Hat, and Debian as most other Linux distributions have adopted it in lack of a better alternative. There is no grand scheme to it other than getting rid of SysV.

In a few years time uselessd, nosh, dmd and the many other systemd-lookalikes in development have matured and there will once again be diversity in init land.

Re: Busybox removes support for systemd

#103

Post by simondedalus »

bsder wrote: post #79
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?

People have been trying to fix the boot process in linux for years. Like most things, everybody screams when something changes, but nobody is willing to put in the work to make something better. RedHat had enough, and finally jammed systemd down on the Linux ecosystem. This had two effects: 1) Technical: it exposed a LOT of shortcomings in the architecture of Linux for operating on modern systems. The whole "This bel…

I don't want to argue about systemd vs this or that, but re: (2) you are totally misrepresenting linus's objection to systemd (developers).

the well-publicized incident to which you're referring had systemd introduce something that broke userland, then instead of fixing it in systemd code, proposed a kernel change for it. this is, obviously, bad practice.

it would be one thing if the systemd code exposed a vulnerability or inefficiency in the linux kernel. but fixing your bad code by modifying the kernel is like trying to modify a popular compiler because some bad code you wrote isn't doing what you want it to.

Re: Busybox removes support for systemd

#104

Post by witty_username »

vezzy-fnord wrote: post #89
otterley wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the criteria by which you classify something as "opaque"? The documentation for systemd and its utilities is second to none.

The documentation for systemd and its utilities is second to none. God help the software industry if that is indeed the case (of course, it is not).

How so? I was able to easily use systemd and the man pages seem decent. Maybe not the best documentation, but it seems reasonable.

Re: Busybox removes support for systemd

#105

Post by witty_username »

AdmiralACK wrote: post #91
cosarara97 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm going to step out on a ledge here, but those that are happy with it really don't understand linux or much of how it works beyond editing a few confs. None of which ever touch systemd

Well I was using systemd-analyze and systemctl {cat,disable, restart} and it seemed similar to Upstart in Ubuntu if not better. (And I was able to use it intuitively without needing to refer to manpages).

Re: Busybox removes support for systemd

#106

Post by johnny22 »

bigbugbag wrote: post #30
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.

Well that's a good question, I'd like to have an answer to that. debian adoption of systemd was a bumpy ride to say the least, it caused a few long time contributors to resign and others to fork debian to remove systemd in a new distro called devuan. Then again systemd gobbled other critical components such as udev, there's also gnome that made it a strict requirement, like a cancer it grows and takes over other comp…

yet gnome still runs on the BSDs that have no systemd.

Re: Busybox removes support for systemd

#107

Post by johnny22 »

generic_user wrote: post #52
xyproto wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Just to add to the others CentOS was essentially bought by RedHat and there Core developer is now a RedHat employee. Magically there was a new major 7.0 version bump adopting SystemD as the one and only init system. A new flashy website and a refusal to allow any alternative init system into the official packages other then SystemD. Needles to say CentOS is no longer an independent alternative to RedHat Linux.

CentOS has NEVER been independent of RHEL

Re: Busybox removes support for systemd

#108

Post by XorNot »

skywhopper wrote: post #55
MichaelGG wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In this case the decision does influence other people, because as pointed out, systemd has taken over many other components' roles, not just init, and if those components are no longer maintained because RedHat pulls its support, then other distributions (with far far fewer resources) are forced to use unmaintained code or switch to systemd.

Red Hat is definitely under no obligations to maintain things it doesn't see as a valuable, and if no one else wants to pick up the slack either then action and code speaks much more loudly then words about the actual value people assign those things.

Re: Busybox removes support for systemd

#109

Post by meddlepal »

brazzledazzle wrote: post #100
voidfunc wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I haven't evaluated all of the previous attempts since that would consume more time than I have available. Can you provide a comparison or some insights into why they're worse?

I can't comment on all of them, but I've dealt with a bunch. I'm out enjoying Halloween right now but if I remember on the morning I'll follow up.

Re: Busybox removes support for systemd

#110

Post by XorNot »

AdmiralACK wrote: post #91
cosarara97 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I'm going to step out on a ledge here, but those that are happy with it really don't understand linux or much of how it works beyond editing a few confs. None of which ever touch systemd

What understanding do you think they would need to have to find your unhappiness?

Because while I'm sure in a competition of esoteric kernel knowledge I would lose to a great many people, I also simply don't care. systemd makes establishing my service start up dependencies amazingly simple. It makes daemon deployment simple. It simplifies a whole host of problems which are not cleanly solvable by other means. It handles process restarts, limits and a whole host of other things for me.

No one is bringing a superior solution to the table. Everyone is telling me daemon-tools and init scripts are "fine" (they're not).

Post reply on HN