81–90 of 449 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I can't say I miss sysvinit. Distros that choose not to employ systemd do not necessarily retain sysvinit.
They probably do though, openrc defaults to sysvinit as its PID1. I guess it's part of the confusion too, most of the systemd work was replacing the "rc bits" (process startup and management) not replacing PID1 itself.
Most arguments about systemd will devolve into a Motte and Bailey argument. The problems with systemd are all the stuff tacked on that are mandatory, but if you criticize them you'll get people switching to try to put words into your mouth about how the init replacement is good/bad. The Motte is all the shovelware attached to systemd that is nearly impossible to detatch and the Bailey is the init replacement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
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…
From my understanding, alternatives _could_ be written, but haven't yet and that means we currently having to ignore more battle-hardened software in favour of whatever is in systemd by default.
SystemD definitely spurred some controversies years ago but is it that bad in 2019? All major distros adopted it and even some that are listed there as "no systemd" in reality just give you choice (e.g. Gentoo). I'd gladly hear the opinion of distro maintainers why did they switch to SystemD if it's as bad as it looks like in people's perception.
yes it's still that bad, my previously reliable systems are now non-deterministic and break randomly every few days I discover some new bit of non-determinism: - systems getting stuck for long periods at startup or reboot with with some useless text like "Waiting for user session to shutdown" - reboots never completing at all (getting completely wedged shutting down) - jobs starting in weird orders, like crond starti…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> systemd monoculture As someone who really wanted the BSDs to get more credit ~20 years back, and spent a fair amount of time on various commercial Unixes as well, I find that phrase rather amusing. Historically poor standardization of the userland aside, GNU/Linux is the poster child for monoculture in Unix, and has left a whole lot of dead or dying software in its wake.
Just to pile it on, I think it's becoming something of a viral force for monoculture, too. 20 years ago, I might occasionally reboot to Windows or fire up a Windows virtual machine in order to open up the occasional recalcitrant Word document in Word itself. Nowadays, if I'm not running Linux on the metal, then I need to keep some sort of a Linux virtual machine running constantly, because so much software has a hard…
I don't like it when my process init and logging system also tries to manage my volume mounts. If I unmount a device, I don't want systemd going behind my back and remounting it for me. It's non standard behavior changes like this that drive systemd hate.
To be precise: Gentoo allows one to run with or without systemd, and both ways are supported.