Live data from Hacker News

Linux distros without systemd

ungleich.ch

121–130 of 449 posts

Re: Linux distros without systemd

#121
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 a…

None of that makes any sense to me. It's all open source. Your last paragraph is absurd and internally inconsistent. Linux (the larger operating system environment) exists only because of its monolithic approach to kernel-space development. Far from suffering from it, it made it all possible when the utopia of the GNU kernel flat-lined. Open source has succeeded because it was easy to improve and replace things piece…

> Linux (the larger operating system environment) exists only because of its monolithic approach to kernel-space development. Far from suffering from it, it made it all possible when the utopia of the GNU kernel flat-lined.

Linux-the-kernel was largely just in the right place at the right time, but to the extent that it had development advantages they were an openness to contributions and the absence of an imposed top-down design.

> Open source has succeeded because it was easy to improve and replace things piecemeal. But deciding that the individual pieces must begin and end at the process level is blinkered. You can perform "piecemeal improvements" to the scheduling component in systemd just as easily as you can to, say, cron.

You can submit changes and improvements to a given cron implementation. But if there's a really hard tradeoff or a disagreement, you can also fork off your own cron implementation, and in fact there are three or four different cron implementations in common use on linux. This is really important and not just in the cases where a fork actually occurs: the possibility of a fork encourages maintainers to be reasonable and come to a consensus.

Systemd's tightly coupled design makes that impossible - it's not about process boundaries but about having any kind of boundary where there's a stable interface between different components. E.g. reasonable people can disagree over whether the advantages of a binary logging format outweigh the disadvantages. But the systemd maintainers have taken a particular position, and, crucially, people who disagree can't just fork the logging component and swap it out for their piece, because there's no stable interface between that and the rest of the system.

Re: Linux distros without systemd

#122

One of the better videos on this subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AeWu1fZ7bY BSDCan 2018—Benno Rice: The Tragedy of systemd "systemd is, to put it mildly, controversial. Depending on who you ask it's either a complete violation of the UNIX philosophy, a bloated pile of bugs, a complete violation of the elegant simplicity it replaced or, it most cases, some or all of the above. So why have so many Linux distr…

I watched this a few weeks ago as well, and it is a very good, even-handed overview of systemd. He talks about the history and other tools that came before, like Apple's `launchd` and Ubuntu's `upstart`. He also talks about the actual problems with it, rather than the FUD hysteria (and also explains why some of them are FUD).

He's from the BSD world, so his POV is as an (mostly) outsider.

Re: Linux distros without systemd

#123
What's the recommended way for someone to learn systemd properly? Is there a readable manual somewhere that documents everything?

That's the only thing I find scary about such big systems, the lack of comprehensive docs and a "starting point for learning them" from 0 to hero. Like, with Git there's tons of nice tutorials like "learn kit bottom up by reinventing it in way X" etc. plus a good "default book".

What's the equivalent of https://git-scm.com/book for systemd?

Re: Linux distros without systemd

#124

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…

Interesting. So what use cases is Docker good for? Why is it so popular if systemd suffices?

I'm not sure systemd had every container feature available when docker was released. If I'm not mistaken, systemd-nspawn (systemd alternative to docker) is much more recent.

Re: Linux distros without systemd

#125

This list is missing a linux-ey system which doesn't use Systemd that is growing in popularity! WSL! WSL somewhat annoyingly has a custom/proprietary init system. Partially due to it's "interesting" integration with windows, and partially because it's not even really a full linux system yet. I'm curious if with the switch to WSL2 where they will begin shipping a full linux kernel if systemd will be included or will t…

> WSL I think you mean GNU/Windows, or as I've taken to calling it, GNU Plus Windows. (Seriously though, the WSL name is deceptive because it doesn't actually contain any Linux code. There is no Linux in "Windows Subsystem for Linux" )

Well not today, but soon it will be GNU/Windows+Linux -- https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/6/18534687/microsoft-windows...

Re: Linux distros without systemd

#126

This list is missing a linux-ey system which doesn't use Systemd that is growing in popularity! WSL! WSL somewhat annoyingly has a custom/proprietary init system. Partially due to it's "interesting" integration with windows, and partially because it's not even really a full linux system yet. I'm curious if with the switch to WSL2 where they will begin shipping a full linux kernel if systemd will be included or will t…

> WSL I think you mean GNU/Windows, or as I've taken to calling it, GNU Plus Windows. (Seriously though, the WSL name is deceptive because it doesn't actually contain any Linux code. There is no Linux in "Windows Subsystem for Linux" )

WSL 2.0 contains a full Linux kernel.

Re: Linux distros without systemd

#127
post #109
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

systemd was not a port of launchd, direct or otherwise. The problem with launchd being difficult to port off MacOS is one of the reasons why launchd never came about for FreeBSD. * http://jdebp.uk./FGA/launchd-on-bsd.html systemd was not a port of anything. And its immediate inspiration was Upstart, the system that Fedora was using at the time, and whose drawbacks provoked Lennart Poettering et al. to start working o…

Ah, you may be right, that's what I get for trying to remember a talk without double-checking. I thought I remembered that systemd was a port of launchd here [1]. My mistake!

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_AIw9bGogo&t=2178s

Re: Linux distros without systemd

#128
Systemd is the worst init system except for all the others that have been developed from time to time.

Some of the trade-offs it makes, and its expansionist attitudes, are really grating. But it introduced a higher level of consistency in the Linux world for userland developers, which is almost invariably a good thing from a commercial perspective.

Re: Linux distros without systemd

#129

If you are still arguing about systemd, you don't know enough about it, so you should learn about it and you don't understand the big picture. Users crying about Linux desktop all the time, but systemd has a huge part making the situation way better.

If this is what it takes, it's not worth it.

Re: Linux distros without systemd

#130
post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems the systemd hate mostly comes from a philosophical position these days than anything grounded in real user impact. You either agree or disagree with what systemd does, or do not care because you are not aware of it (which I would argue is a good thing). Personally I think it is great. Sysvinit scripts were terrible to write and frequently had bugs because the scripts were usually afterthoughts "Oh yea... I g…

sysvinit was at least a thousand times easier than bsd init scripts, and I occasionally see people that are opposed to both systemd and sysvinit and think rc.local was 'it'. shakes head slowly

BSD rc scripts haven't worked in the way that you think that they have, for decades.

Mewburn rc, which reduced many rc scripts to a couple of shell function calls and a handful of variable declarations, has been used by NetBSD since 2001, and FreeBSD started using it about a year later. OpenBSD, furthermore, reinvented Mewburn rc around 8 years ago. Project Trident (formerly TrueOS formerly PC-BSD) has also since then switched from Mewburn rc to OpenRC.

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10357589

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11550802

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14736175

/etc/rc.local was first declared obsolete in the BSD world and replaced by a system of drop-in files in a directory back in 1995.

* http://jdebp.info./FGA/rc.local-is-history.html

Post reply on HN