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

411–420 of 449 posts

Re: Linux distros without systemd

#411

Post by rendaw »

telmich wrote: post #72
microtonal wrote: post #14

Guix is missing, which uses GNU Sheperd, which is in Scheme: https://www.gnu.org/software/shepherd/ That said, to me systemd has been a large improvement. Maybe it has its problems, but at least there is consistency in handling services and logs between Linux distributions, which is a big improvement over a bunch of homegrown sysvinit derivatives, Upstart, and homegrown non-sysvinit scripts.

Just added as as-good-as-we-could to the website - do you have any experiences in using it?

I've used it just a bit. AFAICT Shepherd is a fairly minimal dependency graph.

It's not comprehensive - in Guix there are services that exist above and below Shepherd and you can't define ordering dependencies between these (ex: a shepherd service can't depend on a mount (above shepherd), or an inetd service (below shepherd) on a database). I'm not sure that's a huge problem in practice.

Shepherd process stdout/stderr are sent to syslog. Shepherd automatically restarts services if they fail but not forever, and the retry behavior isn't configurable ATM.

Re: Linux distros without systemd

#412

Post by dang »

JdeBP wrote: post #198
eropple wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

D-Bus, as discussed elsewhere in this thread (where I learned about this, too), is a specification rather than a concrete implementation. Are you asserting that systemd does not work with alternative D-Bus implmentations? That would be weird, seeing as how they wrote an alternative one... Also, since I've been "reading more", and I can check after I get back from lunch--at least at some point Debian shipped systemd w…

> 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…

Please don't be personally abrasive in arguments here. No matter how right you or feel you are, it breaks the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

Re: Linux distros without systemd

#413

Post by anecdiot »

LargoLasskhyfv wrote: post #408
natermer wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. The 'Imperialistic Culture' you speak of is one of those made-up things that systemd haters keep repeating, but has no basis in reality. > They pushed for Gnome to have a hard dependency on it so that everyone would be _forced_ to use it instead of just letting…

At the end of the day it is the handling and haptics that count. So let me give you some anecdotical experience. A few weeks ago when the new Fedora came out i tried it as a live system from usb keychain, out of curiosity. It was the xfce live respin. Anyways, long story short, clicked around for a while, wasn't impressed much, shut it down. Flicker, flicker, the usual console messages scrolled by, and then it was st…

Gotta love the amount of anecdotal evidence in here.

Re: Linux distros without systemd

#414

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

anecdiot wrote: post #413
LargoLasskhyfv wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the end of the day it is the handling and haptics that count. So let me give you some anecdotical experience. A few weeks ago when the new Fedora came out i tried it as a live system from usb keychain, out of curiosity. It was the xfce live respin. Anyways, long story short, clicked around for a while, wasn't impressed much, shut it down. Flicker, flicker, the usual console messages scrolled by, and then it was st…

Gotta love the amount of anecdotal evidence in here.

bzzzt! https://youtu.be/GHhD4PD75zY?t=157

Re: Linux distros without systemd

#415

Post by craigsmansion »

eropple wrote: post #398
craigsmansion wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the -d suffix is traditionally for service daemons. SystemD is not a service daemon. Lowercase is a UNIX convention. SystemD does not have a UNIX approach. Since SystemD is not a Unix service daemon it shouldn't be spelled "systemd" to prevent confusion.

This is...bizarre. Should I pejoratively call you "CRaIg" because I think you don't match up to my standards of what a Craig, or even a craig, is? Is that okay? I don't think it's okay. Names have meaning. It is a really minor bit of respect to use them correctly.

I don't follow. As you state yourself, "names have meaning". By conventions the developers actively disregard, the meaning of the name "systemd" implies several things that the program is not.

Re: Linux distros without systemd

#416

Post by commandersaki »

brobdingnagians wrote: post #65
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…

> 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.

The most recent gripe I have is that systemd people can't even do randomness properly and even use non-cryptographic randomness for DNS transaction IDs (ok probably benign). But just boggles the mind.

https://twitter.com/FiloSottile/status/1125840911299223554

Re: Linux distros without systemd

#417

Post by apexalpha »

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…

RHEL has Systemd since 2014, Ubuntu and Debian as well. Even the purists at Arch have Systemd as default since 2012.

Sure, it ain't perfect. But maybe if all the professional kernel developers and distro managers chose Systemd, and yet some angry people online keep basing their opinions on random amateur blogs catering to a certain narative, regardless of expert opinions, then maybe we can conclude that...

... anti-systemd people are the anti-vaxxers of the Linux world.

Re: Linux distros without systemd

#418

Post by erik_seaberg »

Spivak wrote: post #296
erik_seaberg wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

launchd doesn't break nohup. It doesn't have any opinions about processes started from shells. systemd does, which is completely inappropriate scope creep.

I agree with the systemd developers on this one. It's weird that processes started by users when their logged in by don't end when they log out unless they voluntarily terminate when sent a signal. And nohup was always a hack. Now that we actually have a functioning user-level service manager keeping processes alive by throwing them at PID 1 to parent needs to go away. I really hope that systemd eventually uses subre…

If a process is interactive, it needs a way to be notified that its user is gone. That became a distributed system problem a while ago. PID 1 doesn't know whether an X client is active on a remote display, or a batch job is doing useful work.

Re: Linux distros without systemd

#419

Post by vetinari »

JdeBP wrote: post #386
vetinari wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is wholly and totally imaginary. Every part of system has an alternative because it is all solving existing problems that people have been solving for decades with a variety of tools. Alternative doesn't mean 100% substitute both ways. The pre-systemd didn't go in their abstraction in the way, that systemd does - it is basically system-level, event handling machine. The events could be not only boot, but also…

> The pre-systemd didn't go in their abstraction On the contrary, that's exactly what systemd's predecessor, Upstart, did. systemd, in contrast, did not . Basing the system around the concept of events triggering things turned out to cause problems, as discussed by Lennart Poettering and by Debian Technical Committee members during the Debian Hoo-Hah as their reason for not choosing Upstart.

The problem wasn't that Upstart was event-based, but HOW the event system was designed.

See http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html, section "On Upstart". It names two big issues with HOW.

Re: Linux distros without systemd

#420

Post by kbumsik »

trickstra wrote: post #409
dullgiulio wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bash is memory safe until you run 'rm -rf $DIR/' when DIR is unset. Let's just say the language choice went from bad to equally bad.

Are you saying something in C++ is preventing you from issuing that 'rm -rf' command?

He is saying that Bash can also cause catastrophic behaviors by an as simple mistake as unsetting $DIR. C++ at least reject to compile when a variable is not set.
Post reply on HN