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

Why Did ArchLinux Embrace Systemd? (2016)

reddit.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 132 posts

Re: Why Did ArchLinux Embrace Systemd? (2016)

#11

Post by darkwater »

crankylinuxuser wrote: post #9
darkwater wrote: post #5

Looking back, I still don't get all the hatred that SystemD got (and sometimes is still getting). A part from some nice-to-have missing niche features (I'm looking at you, retries management with one-shots), it Just Works™ for the vast majority of use cases, just like PulseAudio does. The fact is that the minority which indeed have problems is very vocal because those problems come from complex corner-cases that only…

The problem is when "It just works" doesnt, it's an undebuggable, un-understandable, documentationless kluge with binary logs. I had it silently take over my DNS . I even have the 'official' way check-boxed to not override DNS settings in Network Manager. Does so anyway. I even removed the symlink from /etc/resolv.conf and made it root:root . SystemD changed it next reboot.

Documentionless? https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/ and you have it locally and offline too when you need it. Like in the 80s/90s unix way.

And it's way more documented that your average init script sourcing distro-specific bash/sh libraries where you have to dig into and read the code just to understand how that thing works

Re: Why Did ArchLinux Embrace Systemd? (2016)

#12

Post by lykr0n »

yarrel wrote: post #8
thayne wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think ultimately a lot of the systemd hate is just fear of change and not wanting to give up an init system they are famiiliar with.

If we're not afraid of change, Let's change away from systemd.

To what?

Re: Why Did ArchLinux Embrace Systemd? (2016)

#14

Post by peterwwillis »

From the thread, 2brainz, the person maintaining the init scripts, responding to why systemd:

>> I haven't heard a good explanation of why systemd and not a different, new init system

> There is none. Systemd came along, we thought it was great, some of us were already involved with systemd and pushed the change. We could have done many different things, but we didn't.

> Runit was suggested by users at some point, and I think there is/was a runit implementation in AUR. However, runit was never considered in detail.

> First, we don't know if the other systems were really alternatives (at least I don't know). The answer is boring: Systemd solved many problems, it was there, it worked and we already used many of its tools in our initscripts at the time. There is no specific reason why we did not use $WHATEVER over systemd.

> About launchd: it was never considered. As I said elsewhere, systemd seemed to do what we want and we went with it.

Re: Why Did ArchLinux Embrace Systemd? (2016)

#15

Post by Analemma_ »

crankylinuxuser wrote: post #9
darkwater wrote: post #5

Looking back, I still don't get all the hatred that SystemD got (and sometimes is still getting). A part from some nice-to-have missing niche features (I'm looking at you, retries management with one-shots), it Just Works™ for the vast majority of use cases, just like PulseAudio does. The fact is that the minority which indeed have problems is very vocal because those problems come from complex corner-cases that only…

The problem is when "It just works" doesnt, it's an undebuggable, un-understandable, documentationless kluge with binary logs. I had it silently take over my DNS . I even have the 'official' way check-boxed to not override DNS settings in Network Manager. Does so anyway. I even removed the symlink from /etc/resolv.conf and made it root:root . SystemD changed it next reboot.

> The problem is when "It just works" doesnt, it's an undebuggable, un-understandable, documentationless kluge with binary logs.

Init scripts were undebuggable, un-understanable, documentationless kluge with text logs, and systemd has a perfectly functional format converter. I'm not seeing the regression here.

Re: Why Did ArchLinux Embrace Systemd? (2016)

#17

Post by cwyers »

aidenn0 wrote: post #6
bflesch wrote: post #2

I wish this kind of opinion would've been spread more widely within the Arch universe (wiki / IRC) so outsiders can understand what we actually gained from switching to systemd. It still feels like many people hate systemd but the reasons that are presented all sound totally valid from a programmers' perspective.

These reasons are valid; I think the main reason so many people hate systemd is how all-encompasing it has become. Prior to systemd, the lack of a standard init/rc/service monitoring system meant that you could pick and choose 3 different solutions for those 3 problems. systemd is pushing for unifying not just those 3, but other systems too (gummiboot, consolekit, udev). As more software becomes designed to work just…

Yeah, it's two sides talking past each other, with very different conceptions of what Linux should be. The systemd detractors tend to view Linux as sort of a grab bag where you can make a nigh infinite number of operating systems, all loosely compatible with each other. The systemd people view that as way too much stuff to test and support.

Re: Why Did ArchLinux Embrace Systemd? (2016)

#18

Post by [deleted] »

KingMachiavelli wrote: post #3

> What most systemd critics consider "bloat", I consider necessary complexity to solve a complex problem generically. As a distro and philosophy, Archlinux was bound to adopt systemd eventually. e.g. Maintaining you're own init system/scripts is not KISS. Creating a custom init file to adapt 90% of software from systemd to another init system is not KISS.

[deleted]

Re: Why Did ArchLinux Embrace Systemd? (2016)

#19

Post by barbecue_sauce »

LinuxBender wrote: post #10
thayne wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think ultimately a lot of the systemd hate is just fear of change and not wanting to give up an init system they are famiiliar with.

For me it was the scope creep. Systemd is turning "init" into a framework of all the vulnerable and bad ideas that Microsoft moved away from after Win95/XP. binfmt mount, intercepting and changing the behavior of DNS, polkit implementation, changing user authentication, so much more than I could put here. There are many desktop concepts being shimmed into servers that are simply not appropriate for a lean mean web ma…

Is it correct to even say that systemd "brought" cgroups and lxc? They seem like fairly independent projects.

Re: Why Did ArchLinux Embrace Systemd? (2016)

#20

Post by cipherboy »

oauea wrote: post #13

Meanwhile http://without-systemd.org/ (linked from the post) throws database errors. Maybe they forgot to 'enable' their mysql systemd service?

I don't think so. It has been a while since I've done PHP but that reads like an inclue-gone-missing (likely with MySQL connection configuration information) causing the database to fail rather than MySQL breaking the include.
Post reply on HN