Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I dislike systemd but I'm not going to abandon the Debian Foundation over it.
This is the real point. I have my issues with systemd. For example, I just had an interesting discussion on GH with Varnish packers about changing a daemon arg (in that case, the bind address/port). The way systemd "recommends" to change the arguments passed to a daemon is to write a drop-in file (i.e. /etc/systemd/system/service-name.service.d/something.conf) that overwrites the ExecStart line. To do so, you have to…
Linux greybeards release beta of systemd-free Debian fork
151–160 of 189 posts
Re: Linux greybeards release beta of systemd-free Debian fork
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't see how that is the case. Why is this any less clear? I don't think following the Fedora debug guide is any less difficult than troubleshooting a SysV-init script. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_debug_Systemd_problems It's curious that he says "Binary anything is bad when alternatives exist. Linux has given itself over to binary blobs in the name of being more attractive to corporate users. Device driv…
You seem to forget that the bash scripts are the entire rc system. In systemd, the init binary and utilities are the entire rc system. Those commands will not help you if you have to find a bug into systemd code to find something like a constant on the maximum size of a core dump and work around it. Then open a bug and hope it does not get ignored for ~3 years. But who needs core dumps anyway, right?
It's not like new services and startup programs aren't constantly being introduced - so whilst the old scripts were pretty steady, new ones weren't always foolproof.
I'm not adverse to SysV and rc scripts, but they were never the panacea that some grey-beards make out. Dependency orders and parallelisation are particularly difficult, but it could be argued the scripts give control during the boot process.
I think in practice, it's fairly rate that the scripts were really needed - certainly systemd's more declarative nature for a problem that naturally lends itself to a dependency structure that has a directed acyclic graph seems like it's quite an effective an elegant approach!
Aside from the reasonable daemon-arguments issue you raise in the other comment (I just read this, interesting observation!) I really feel that systemd largely eliminates huge quantities of shell scripting in the startup process!
I've been wondering what scenarios there are that would require scripting. I thought that perhaps a more complex setup might be that a service needs to wait on two or three processes before starting, in which case a child can have multiple parents? Can systemd handle that?
Re: Linux greybeards release beta of systemd-free Debian fork
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the real point. I have my issues with systemd. For example, I just had an interesting discussion on GH with Varnish packers about changing a daemon arg (in that case, the bind address/port). The way systemd "recommends" to change the arguments passed to a daemon is to write a drop-in file (i.e. /etc/systemd/system/service-name.service.d/something.conf) that overwrites the ExecStart line. To do so, you have to…
That's interesting... Does Lennart explain why he doesn't recommend the environment file/directive?
The Environment= thing I haven't seen any official comment about its recommended-ness but it has some quirks in syntax so it needs pretty rigorous testing before being used for anything that might have values that need to be quoted/escaped.
Re: Linux greybeards release beta of systemd-free Debian fork
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't see how that is the case. Why is this any less clear? I don't think following the Fedora debug guide is any less difficult than troubleshooting a SysV-init script. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_debug_Systemd_problems It's curious that he says "Binary anything is bad when alternatives exist. Linux has given itself over to binary blobs in the name of being more attractive to corporate users. Device driv…
Funny how nobody can answer this question!
Re: Linux greybeards release beta of systemd-free Debian fork
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
systemd is itself a series of something like 70-odd binaries. Why? Why not keep it text-based? It works for others.
Does it really work for others? Because I've yet to see any init system that provides even a small proportion of the functionality of systemd that I actively rely on .
You mean all those init systems you relied upon for the decades before systemd...or did you just start using linux recently?
Re: Linux greybeards release beta of systemd-free Debian fork
#156Re: Linux greybeards release beta of systemd-free Debian fork
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd argue that one of the biggest things that made sysvinit so ugly was that distro maintainers didn't enforce any type of startup script hygiene. Take a look at BSD-style init scripts some time. They're beautiful in their simplicity and readability. They source a common set of functions, have well-defined variables to control execution, and end up with a length about that of systemd units, without sacrificing the po…
I actually came from FreeBSD to Debian 8 years ago and the funny thing is that I don't remember editing rc scripts anywhere near as often as I edited sysvinit scripts on Debian. But that could easily be explained by the average complexity of services increasing along with my career path into Linux and Devops. I don't remember any clear differences between sysvinit and rc, the scripting is still left up to the user wh…
van Smoorenburg rc and Mewburn rc are noticably different.
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11550802
They are both rc, by the way. Don't conflate init and rc.
> If you want to add more complexity you can write a start script for the service but that should not be the norm.
In some fields, it appears that it is.
* http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/sy...
Re: Linux greybeards release beta of systemd-free Debian fork
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're post-rationalizing. The kernel is an exception today, true, but that doesn't mean it needs to be special. The established Unix philosophy of everything being "one program that does one thing" would be hugely beneficial if applied to an OS kernel. Wouldn't it be great you could just run different drivers and file system in userspace rather than having to compile a big kernel? Not to mention that it coul…
> Wouldn't it be great you could just run different drivers and file system in userspace rather than having to compile a big kernel? Except that it makes debugging almost impossible and the overhead of IPC is very large. I'd argue that most popular kernels today (k{Free,Open,Net}BSD, illumos, Linux) are monolithic because that model makes development much simpler than a microkernel (not for historical reasons). Hybri…
* http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/mi...
Re: Linux greybeards release beta of systemd-free Debian fork
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, the point of switching and studying is not clear. If all you need is service startup and keeping up, a few more polished tools exist with a dramatically ssmaller footprint.
"a few more polished tools exist with a dramatically smaller footprint." Which tools did you have in mind?
* http://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2015/09/05/0/
* http://homepage.ntlworld.com./jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/da...
Re: Linux greybeards release beta of systemd-free Debian fork
#160Init should be just this: http://git.suckless.org/sinit/tree/sinit.c , systemd incorparates too much funcitonality IMO, I cant get used to it. Well, but its a free world, I have even written a Go init, some guy did Rust based, and upstart is still being used by Ubuntu 14.04, I like choices, and happy to see this alternative as well.