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

Knoppix 8.6 abandons systemd

techrepublic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 191 posts

Re: Knoppix 8.6 abandons systemd

#71

Post by inimino »

nickik wrote: post #51
einpoklum wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They're separate binaries, and can be easily unbundled. No, they can't. The fact that they're compiled into separate binaries doesn't mean they're independent - they're completely dependent.

That is in fact simply wrong. First of all, most of these systems are totally voluntary. You can simply not use them. And if you use them, you can replace them with other components that speak the same API if you want. The binaries talk to each other with a message passing API and that is actually the proper way to make a replaceable component. This has been done quite a few times before for many different reasons.

Inventing a message-passing API is not the way to make a replaceable component.

Re: Knoppix 8.6 abandons systemd

#72

Post by hyperman1 »

orf wrote: post #14
hyperman1 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are missing the point: Something like systemd has a good reason to exist. But the devil is in the creating team. We've seen pulseaudio, a good system in theory, but an untrustworthy unstable system in practice. And if it wont work, it is so complicated and non-transparent that you need a specialist. Taking a step backward from Alsa is hard, and they managed to do it. Now that same team is messing with sys…

> We know from the kernel command line debug debacle they rather see the world burn down than admit they did something wrong Can you expand? I've not heard of this.

Here is an overview:

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=mty1mza

Re: Knoppix 8.6 abandons systemd

#73

Post by tannhaeuser »

tiew9Vii wrote: post #52
znpy wrote: post #3

I see a lot of hate about systems and I used to loathe it too. Then I took a course on systemd specifically and it opened my eyes, and now I'm quite fond about it. Systemd actually does ONE thing and does it well: it manages the system. It's the missing layer between kernel space and user space. It has quirks and bugs like all software, but I think it works very well, all things considered. To those who say that it's…

I'm an end user. As an end user I don't mind SystemD for writing / managing service unit files. I often find the restart policies and one time only jobs useful especially in cloud with automated deployments. My feelings on SystemD as end user are neutral, it does have some useful things but I understand some of peoples grievances with it. On the other side I have some OpenBSD systems and the simplicity of OpenBSD ser…

Congrats on "getting" the Unix philosophy!

Nit: OpenBSD uses ksh not bash

Re: Knoppix 8.6 abandons systemd

#74

Post by dreich »

rwmj wrote: post #5
znpy wrote: post #3

I see a lot of hate about systems and I used to loathe it too. Then I took a course on systemd specifically and it opened my eyes, and now I'm quite fond about it. Systemd actually does ONE thing and does it well: it manages the system. It's the missing layer between kernel space and user space. It has quirks and bugs like all software, but I think it works very well, all things considered. To those who say that it's…

systemd is a perfectly fine init system. The problem is that it comes bundled with a whole bunch of other tools for handling networks, cron, ntp, etc which really ought to be separate projects. By bundling them with the successful init system they're not exposed to the usual Darwinian selection processes that shake out the best free software.

Even as an init system, systemd is far more monolithic and inflexible than existing alternatives as it requires using glibc.

Re: Knoppix 8.6 abandons systemd

#75

Post by SahAssar »

mepian wrote: post #12
Svoka wrote: post #8

I did a small ask around the room in the office, no one heard about Knoppix. Good for them, I guess.

It's okay to flaunt your ignorance if you can claim that your peers are ignorant as well, I guess. Knoppix was one of the first, if not the first, popular live CD distributions.

I think you know how your comment sounds, and I think you also know that is not a nice way to interact with other people.

Re: Knoppix 8.6 abandons systemd

#76

Post by youdontknowtho »

pdkl95 wrote: post #65
qubex wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it isn’t. Firstly: they weren’t the originators of systemd, they simply hired the guy who first developed it to continue developing it. Secondly: it: being open source and GPL, anybody can use it or fork it and not be due anything to Red Hat. Thirdly, it isn’t extinguishing anything as a business strategy ; it’s just out-competing alternatives in the “mindshare” arena.

> it being open source and GPL, anybody can use it or fork it The entire point of the EEE strategy is to capture protocols or standards, such as software developed by other companies or free software developed under the GPL. Forking isn't a relevant option, because the other parties software is not changed (it's expected to not be able to change). From Microsoft employee Ronald Alepin's sworn expert testimony[1] in C…

Adding group SID's to an optional field in Kerberos was them using a standard to support their own system.

It was never incompatible with MIT or Heimdal. Those systems didn't use the group information in the optional field, but you could kinit and get a Kerberos ticket from a DC.

I know I'm not going to change your mind, but Kerberos isn't a good example.

Re: Knoppix 8.6 abandons systemd

#77

Post by aeyes »

tdewitt wrote: post #62

The fact that we're still having _this_ conversation, after after a decade since being released and years after mass adoption, should say a lot. I can't think of any other software I have to use on a daily basis that gets so much heat, every time it comes up. One can make all the arguments for it they want but the continued public comtempt means something.

The list in the Linux desktop world is honestly pretty long and could be extended at will. Some examples: Wayland, GNOME 3, KDE Plasma, Nvidia drivers, PulseAudio, DBus

Re: Knoppix 8.6 abandons systemd

#78

Post by tannhaeuser »

nickik wrote: post #47
hyperman1 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are missing the point: Something like systemd has a good reason to exist. But the devil is in the creating team. We've seen pulseaudio, a good system in theory, but an untrustworthy unstable system in practice. And if it wont work, it is so complicated and non-transparent that you need a specialist. Taking a step backward from Alsa is hard, and they managed to do it. Now that same team is messing with sys…

The amount of features and stuff they add to systemd is seriously impressive. They have bugs sometimes, but I have been running it in production for years and years and never had a real issue. Its an incredibly stable system. Sometimes a new version has a bug because systemd has to work in so many context, those get fixed very quickly generally. I would challange anybody, to introduce a totally new system layer on li…

> The amount of features and stuff they add to systemd is seriously impressive

That's exactly the problem, though. You don't want all that stuff in your privileged PID 1 process. Nor blowing up your prod servers and getting in your way to even examine log files afterwards.

Re: Knoppix 8.6 abandons systemd

#79

Post by pdkl95 »

AsyncAwait wrote: post #54
pdkl95 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> does ONE thing and does it well: it manages the system "managing the system" is not "ONE [problem]". A big part of the problem with systemd is this presupposition that management of something as large and complex as a modern OS is a single monolithic[1] problem. > it's complex because it does a complex work. See, you agree that it's a complex problem! It's so complex with so many different use cases it isn't even p…

You still have s6, openRC etc. as choices, but it's funny that nobody of the anti-systemd folk was willing to pick up the work needed to maintain consolekit, yet when logind came around, had lots of strong things to say. How about picking up the work as well? And none of the alternatives seem to really get away from the bash script paradigm & more towards the declarative side of things, which doesn't feel like much b…

> nobody of the anti-systemd folk was willing to pick up the work needed to maintain consolekit

Why would I want to start working on software I don't use or need? Why do systemd advocates always insist that every implementation must include the features they think are important? The entire point of designing for modularity is that different people have different requirements; operating systems cannot be "one size fits all".

> yet when logind came around, had lots of strong things to say.

Yes, we had strong things to say about software requiring logind, because it is a terrible (and poorly documented, at least at the time) design. If you want to use logind, go right ahead, that's your choice. We were (and are) only angry about software that we used to be able to use adding dependencies to logind (or other systemd components).

> And none of the alternatives seem to really get away from the bash script paradigm

That probably won't happen, because shell scripting is the easiest/simplest solution for certain types of problems. Some of us have tried a lot of variatio9ns, and keep returning to openrc/bash because it's easier and has fewer problems, at least in some situations. However, on a traditional system (or openrc) nothing is stopping you from replacing the bash init scripts with another language or replacing the entire init subsystem with something else (like upstart, s6, something new?). The complaint isn't that your should use my favorite tools (like bash) instead of systemd; it's that we should strive for modular software so we can all use the components that work best for our different needs,

Re: Knoppix 8.6 abandons systemd

#80

Post by ddalex »

nickik wrote: post #51
einpoklum wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They're separate binaries, and can be easily unbundled. No, they can't. The fact that they're compiled into separate binaries doesn't mean they're independent - they're completely dependent.

That is in fact simply wrong. First of all, most of these systems are totally voluntary. You can simply not use them. And if you use them, you can replace them with other components that speak the same API if you want. The binaries talk to each other with a message passing API and that is actually the proper way to make a replaceable component. This has been done quite a few times before for many different reasons.

1. you cannot not use them - the init binary doesn't gracefully degrade in the absence of the services provided by these APIs

2. the APIs are very complex and convoluted, with deep state maintained throughout the message exchanges; so complex it's effectively impossible to redo them without basically implementing everything exactly the same way

the fact that some binaries communicate through APIs doesn't mean the system is modular, if the "modules" of the system cannot be used independently for other purposes

Post reply on HN