Earlier quoted context omitted.
Change is good. Let's change away from systemd.
Come up with something demonstrably better then. Nobody is stopping you.
Why are you acting as if alternatives don't already exist?
Linux distros without systemd
251–260 of 449 posts
Re: Linux distros without systemd
#252One 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…
This is a great talk, and helped change my stance on systemd from bad to neutral.
Re: Linux distros without systemd
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Are you asserting You need to stop constructing straw men, too. I asserted what I actually wrote. And Lennart Poettering asserted that > D-Bus has been a core component of Linux systems since more than 10 years. and > D-Bus refers to both a specification, and a reference implementation. back in 2015. I suggest that instead of arguing fallaciously about something that you tell us you have only just learned about, th…
Asking for clarification isn't a strawman, sorry. And it sure seemed like you were correcting me, which is why I asked. But I said that journald was the only mandatory component of systemd outside of PID1. You said this was wrong. I'm waiting for you to extrapolate? Does systemd only work with the "canonical" dbus-broker? Or does it want ("want" as I'm reading stuff that suggests it isn't absolutely required, but I'm…
This is out of the line. You were given civil arguments for why systemd requires Dbus but in your response, you accuse the other person of being a jerk and "big-timeing". Please use the strongest interpretation of other people's claims on the topic, before using them as a means to accuse them of wrongdoing.
Re: Linux distros without systemd
#254To be precise: Gentoo allows one to run with or without systemd, and both ways are supported.
What is the default at the moment?
To be clear, you choose at install time. There is no official installer (on purpose), so the user either decides to turn to page x for OpenRC or page y for systemd.
Re: Linux distros without systemd
#255Earlier quoted context omitted.
Memory safety is not the alpha and omega of programming languages. People do not write million lines of code applications in bash, for a reason, trade-offs are to be made. That said I agree they should have picked Go instead /s.
I'm not such a lover of Go, but: non-sarcastically, Go may well have been a good choice.
Given the timeframe, something like OCaml would likely have been a better option.
Re: Linux distros without systemd
#256Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my opinion, as an init script replacement, systemD is almost a great thing. Including everything else is what makes it a terrible thing.
But...it doesn't include "everything else". My desktop doesn't use systemd-timesyncd, I'm not even sure systemd-nspawn is installed on my home server, that same server isn't using systemd-resolved. I haven't fiddled with journald anywhere 'cause I like it a lot more than rsyslogd, but you totally can forward journald stuff to rsyslogd if that's more your bag (and I think, though don't quote me on that, you can remove…
You can't replace journald. See the 10 times this has been referenced throughout the thread.
Re: Linux distros without systemd
#257Earlier quoted context omitted.
Again, I've said that I know there are issues, that I end up discovering one at a time. the problem is not the issues themselves, as once I know they're there I can trivially google for how to fix them, it's the fact they don't show up except sometimes I do not care about boot speed at all, I care that I upgrade the system to a new distro release with systemd, test it, then it continues to work that way until I chang…
> I just want my systems to boot, run my simple applications, then shutdown when I ask them to Which is what you get out of the box with systemd. The only problems you mentioned either apply equally (e.g. shutdown delays due to blocked processes — having supported NFS clients, let me tell you that was not a new problem in the 90s…) or are due to misunderstandings about how to use other components. For example, if you…
you are not listening or being are deliberately obtuse
I have stated three times that I accept that these processes are incorrectly specified, and that my problem is not this -- the problem is that I cannot discover these missing dependencies by any reasonable process
whoever set them up 20 years ago is long gone, and what was reliable is now not
this is a regression
(and let's not get started that my brand new installations of Debian onto a single root partition get stuck booting or reboot 1 in 10 times... I get it, totally my fault as the end-user)
Re: Linux distros without systemd
#258Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be fair, the ones sending death threats are contributing negatively, while the fork effort is a positive contribution to the situation. We'd appreciate not being lumped in with the worst offenders, if you'd be so kind.
A lot of the western world has devolved into tribalism and identitarianism. People of similar views on anything are lumped in en-masse and presumed to hold all of the same values, opinions and support all actions of the collective whole. It's a shame that a lot of core values are lost in favor of these viewpoints.
Yeah. It is really sad. We're getting hyper-polarized options and information everywhere we look, and it's affected people's ability to argue a specific point if they detect any misalignment of interests. I've been calling it "casually dismissing someone's opinion by lumping it in with an ideology", but looking for something more concise.
Re: Linux distros without systemd
#259I'm still waiting for it to eat dbus.
Re: Linux distros without systemd
#260Earlier quoted context omitted.
Asking for clarification isn't a strawman, sorry. And it sure seemed like you were correcting me, which is why I asked. But I said that journald was the only mandatory component of systemd outside of PID1. You said this was wrong. I'm waiting for you to extrapolate? Does systemd only work with the "canonical" dbus-broker? Or does it want ("want" as I'm reading stuff that suggests it isn't absolutely required, but I'm…
This is out of the line. You were given civil arguments for why systemd requires Dbus but in your response, you accuse the other person of being a jerk and "big-timeing". Please use the strongest interpretation of other people's claims on the topic, before using them as a means to accuse them of wrongdoing.
I am inviting the strengthening of his position in order to better understand it. I asked him to elaborate because as near as I can tell there is no hard dependency on any D-Bus broker. There is possibly--I genuinely can't tell from the documentation I've been browsing through--a dependency on a D-Bus broker. Requiring a D-Bus broker does not make any one D-Bus broker mandatory...and so, if that is the case, then my assertion that journald is the only non-PID1 part of systemd that is required would hold.
I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong. I invited it, even; I'm wrong all the time and being wrong is how one learns. The big-timing I referred to is the refusal to materially engage. Instead he quotes Lennart about D-Bus--out of context? who knows! It isn't an indication of the state of the software in question, just his opinion at a point in time--and to tell me to go read (read what, exactly? what generosity in citation!). Oddly enough, though, I don't see you tagging in to lecture him about that sort of sneering. Why's that?