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

Linux distros without systemd

ungleich.ch

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 449 posts

Re: Linux distros without systemd

#61

Post by boramalper »

markstos wrote: post #53

I read everything I could find on systemd to form my own opinion. I used FreeBSD for a decade and have many years of Ubuntu/upstart experience after that. Based on my experience and all the anti-systemd posts online, I expected to dislike it. But on it's merits I really like the consistency it brings to the "system layer" of the OS. I find it's shame when developers skip over systemd for consideration, adding extra l…

> For example, using Docker when the basic isolation features of systemd would do

This is an interesting claim, mind throwing some pointers?

Re: Linux distros without systemd

#62

Post by tssva »

The biggest complaint I regularly see about systemd from those that don't like it is that it violates the UNIX philosophy by combining too many functionalities into one project.

Based upon this I found the following quote from the article in regards to Alpine Linux, a distribution based upon BusyBox which implements the functionality of over 100 usually separate executables into one, quite amusing.

> It is small and simple, realising the UNIX spirit to the core: doing one thing and doing it well.

Re: Linux distros without systemd

#63

Post by progval »

boramalper wrote: post #61
markstos wrote: post #53

I read everything I could find on systemd to form my own opinion. I used FreeBSD for a decade and have many years of Ubuntu/upstart experience after that. Based on my experience and all the anti-systemd posts online, I expected to dislike it. But on it's merits I really like the consistency it brings to the "system layer" of the OS. I find it's shame when developers skip over systemd for consideration, adding extra l…

> For example, using Docker when the basic isolation features of systemd would do This is an interesting claim, mind throwing some pointers?

https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd.exe...

and some other directives documented on the same page.

Re: Linux distros without systemd

#64

Post by snazz »

tombert wrote: post #40

I do find it funny that people crap all over systemd, but don't seem to have a huge problem with launchd, despite the fact that systemd was almost a direct port of it. Personally, while I do think that systemd's scope might have been a bit too ambitious, I do find it easier than something like Upstart

If you use a Mac, you don’t have much choice about your init system and probably don’t get into idealogical arguments about them as often as Linux users do.

Plus, there’s always the BSDs, which don’t use systemd but still feel very clean and cohesive.

Re: Linux distros without systemd

#65

Post by brobdingnagians »

AsyncAwait wrote: post #12

I get that not everybody likes systemd, but a lot of the criticisms seem misguided and looking at sysvinit with role-colored glasses. For example, people are complaining about logind being included, but forget that consolekit was unmaintained before that. Yes, there's parts to systemd that not everyone will use, like container support, but in that case you can pretty safely ignore that use case. For me, systemd has p…

Most of the problem I have it is with the imperialistic culture that came with it and with the serious security bugs that they keep sweeping under the rug.

It is easier to configure and is convenient to have one holistic system in a lot of ways, but...

They pushed for Gnome to have a hard dependency on it so that everyone would be _forced_ to use it instead of just letting it be accepted by merits.

They have a track record of labeling serious bugs as non-issues, ignoring them, or just not filing them as CVEs. Serious issues keep coming up.

I don't think the code is high-quality, but even more than that I have a problem with the people being controlling, dismissive, and deceptive.

Re: Linux distros without systemd

#66

Post by exabrial »

My experience with systemd has be extraordinarily positive. I like the unified syntax of unit files. I know that's like 50% of what systemd does, but it does it extraordinarily well.

Is systemd-nspawn secure enough now we can forget docker et all? I liked the idea of a "chroot" being supported by the service manager.

Re: Linux distros without systemd

#68

Post by [deleted] »

lmm wrote: post #35
sjwright wrote: post #8

I get no end of bemusement from open source advocates that think it makes any kind of rational sense to campaign against an open source project. THIS IS ALL OPEN SOURCE. Freedom and choice is the whole point, isn't it? If you prefer an alternative or forebear to systemd, that is great. Use it. Advocate for the system you prefer. Convince people that the choice you have made is better. Meanwhile the vast majority of d…

Open standards are more important than open source. Choice is indeed the whole point, but systemd is designed to take my choice away. It doesn't matter how good an init system I make, if it starts getting any traction then systemd will come up with a new incompatible API for doing something, Gnome will take a hard dependency on that API, and distributions won't be able to ship my init system. It's worth realising tha…

[deleted]

Re: Linux distros without systemd

#69

Post by lmm »

sjwright wrote: post #54
lmm wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Open standards are more important than open source. Choice is indeed the whole point, but systemd is designed to take my choice away. It doesn't matter how good an init system I make, if it starts getting any traction then systemd will come up with a new incompatible API for doing something, Gnome will take a hard dependency on that API, and distributions won't be able to ship my init system. It's worth realising tha…

None of that makes any sense to me. It's all open source. It's laughable to worry about Gnome taking a hard dependency on an API when hundreds of software programs take a hard dependency on Gnome. Hypocrisy, much? Meanwhile if the maintainers of GNOME betray your trust, it sounds like you should hate this hypothetical GNOME for the same reasons you apparently hate systemd. Or rather than hating it, you could just for…

> If the maintainers of GNOME betray your trust, it sounds like you should hate this hypothetical GNOME for the same reasons you apparently hate systemd. Or just fork it. If enough people agree with you, a disentangled fork will inevitably be maintained.

And then they move on to the next project and introduce a hard-dependency on systemd there. RedHat has more programmers than me, they're always going to be able to add systemd dependencies faster than I can fork things. The only way users will ever be able to have a choice of init system is if the community can agree that hard-depending on systemd is indeed a betrayal, and publicise this.

> it's naive to assume that what was good for open source in its infancy is still what's best for open source in its coming maturity.

Open source succeeded because it was easy to improve and replace things piecemeal. That's still as important as ever.

> [0] Given that the open source movement has monumentally benefited from monolithic design principles in the form of the Linux kernel, I think that hypothesis is demonstrably absurd and easily rejected.

Linux has suffered from its monolithic approach to kernel-space development, but the damage was mitigated by an extreme commitment to providing a solid API to userspace that never gets broken. So most progress took place in userspace and wasn't affected. There's no analogous boundary for systemd.

Re: Linux distros without systemd

#70

Post by snazz »

tombert wrote: post #60
telmich wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also think upstart was a bit nuts... but how do you think about openrc vs systemd?

FreeBSD uses OpenRC right? I remember liking how easy it was to set up startup scripts in FreeBSD, so I think I like it? I'll admit I haven't used it as much as systemd or Upstart, so I can't give a strong opinion.

OpenRC isn’t the default but is portable to FreeBSD and NetBSD.

See https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?init

Post reply on HN