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

Systemd Brand

brand.systemd.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 96 posts

Re: Systemd Brand

#71

Post by kstrauser »

esarbe wrote: post #67
JohnFen wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not true or fair. That you've had a wonderful experience with it doesn't mean that others don't have legitimate issues with it.

Just because there's a vocal minority that complains very loudly doesn't mean it doesn't work for most users out there. The distribution maintainers have spoken; systemd is a vastly superior to any alternative out there. It's no contest, really. It makes building and maintaining complex and dynamic system setups laughably easy. So easy that just about every distribution maintainer threw their arms up in the air and s…

> Just because there's a vocal minority that complains very loudly doesn't mean it doesn't work for most users out there.

That's not adequate in itself. If we were talking about a database that only lost data if your last name started with "Z", then JWZ would probably be quite vocal about it. Even if it worked fine for you and me, that would be a serious problem. If systemd (or anything else) had a major design flaw, that would be important even if most people don't get bitten by it.

> I've yet to work with a system engineer that dislikes systemd. Has Not Yet Happened.

I've heard from plenty who dislike it. Plenty who love it, too, to be sure! But there's definitely a non-negligible set of sysadmins who don't care for it.

> People complaining about systemd is like people complaining that these newfangled LED lights are not producing enough heat.

More like people complaining that every now and then it catches their loft on fire, but so rarely that everyone else thinks it's peachy.

Re: Systemd Brand

#72

Post by int_19h »

jolmg wrote: post #59
JohnFen wrote: post #30

> The log of OS components successfully starting up, as indicated by the green [ OK ], is what many people already identify systemd with. This made it a natural choice to derive our visual identity from. That's an interesting comment, since the green [ OK ] was in use for bootup messages long before systemd was a thing. Nothing about it says "systemd" to me.

The comment is true for me, though. When I see a linux machine boot up and display a series of aligned [ OK ]s on the left-hand side, I know instantly that it's using systemd. I don't remember seeing [ OK ] with sysvinit, or at least not as uniformly.

It depended on the distro. Red Hat was using it for a long time, which I suspect is why systemd has it, too. Look here at 24:40 - this is Red Hat 9, released in 2003: https://youtu.be/QKtzfwyspU0?t=1300

Gentoo also did it from the get go, although it's not SysV.

Re: Systemd Brand

#73

Post by JackRabbitSlim »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #31

No kernel patch to replace Tux with the systemd logo?

I had some time and for some reason it made me want to go see how boot images were actually done in the build system so...

https://pastebin.com/Ewe3UurF

not tested or proofed, must provide own logo_mark_beast.ppm of the logo

Re: Systemd Brand

#74

Post by [deleted] »

caiocaiocaio wrote: post #55
sergiomattei wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the problem with it? It's minimal and displays an element iconic to their boot logs. It's just a logo. You can like it or hate it, it's design. It's bound to be subjective. But why is it "a waste of graphic design"? On a side note, this kind of unhelpful/non-constructive feedback isn't welcome on HN.

I think it's great graphic design, wasted on a project that doesn't need branding or identity, and certainly doesn't need any more publicity than it already has. That logo could have been used on something that brought joy into people's lives.

[deleted]

Re: Systemd Brand

#76

Post by SahAssar »

edoceo wrote: post #24
calcifer wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An init system is just one of many, many projects under the systemd umbrella. Perhaps you should learn more about a project before launching into criticism?

So pretty soon SystemD will add additional service of beverages and, like the Borg, assimilate Coca-Cola?

Are you similarly opposed to gnome having a logo? k8s? linux? What is the actual issue with having a logo and basic design guidelines?

Re: Systemd Brand

#77

Post by SahAssar »

fwxwi wrote: post #62
calcifer wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> infiltrate all distros > hard dependency from GNOME to systemd > both projects belong to the same corporation It is honestly impressive how you've managed to fit three different factually incorrect statements in a single sentence. Kudos.

GNOME and systemd are funded almost completely by Red Hat and their biggest contributors are full-time Red Hat employees. GNOME does not run at all without systemd. Even the biggest Linux distros, like Gentoo, struggle to create a patchset to modify GNOME so it does not require systemd; every new version of GNOME takes months to reach Gentoo stable. Most distros have bent the knee and switched to systemd because they…

If the changes are so bad and the maintainers are ignoring proper concerns why not use one of the forks?

Re: Systemd Brand

#78

Post by SahAssar »

caiocaiocaio wrote: post #55
sergiomattei wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the problem with it? It's minimal and displays an element iconic to their boot logs. It's just a logo. You can like it or hate it, it's design. It's bound to be subjective. But why is it "a waste of graphic design"? On a side note, this kind of unhelpful/non-constructive feedback isn't welcome on HN.

I think it's great graphic design, wasted on a project that doesn't need branding or identity, and certainly doesn't need any more publicity than it already has. That logo could have been used on something that brought joy into people's lives.

For some people systemd "brought joy" into their lives.

Re: Systemd Brand

#79

Post by JohnFen »

esarbe wrote: post #67
JohnFen wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not true or fair. That you've had a wonderful experience with it doesn't mean that others don't have legitimate issues with it.

Just because there's a vocal minority that complains very loudly doesn't mean it doesn't work for most users out there. The distribution maintainers have spoken; systemd is a vastly superior to any alternative out there. It's no contest, really. It makes building and maintaining complex and dynamic system setups laughably easy. So easy that just about every distribution maintainer threw their arms up in the air and s…

> Just because there's a vocal minority that complains very loudly doesn't mean it doesn't work for most users out there.

Yes, obviously.

> The distribution maintainers have spoken; systemd is a vastly superior to any alternative out there.

This seems like a logical leap. Sure, distros have spoken -- but that doesn't speak to whether or not systemd is generally superior. It only speaks to it being acceptable for distros.

> People complaining about systemd is like people complaining that these newfangled LED lights are not producing enough heat.

I don't see that parallel at all. But I guess it doesn't matter.

What I do know is that I've used systemd a lot, and it certainly has its benefits. But it also has its drawbacks. Personally, the tradeoff is not acceptable to me.

This is why systemd has spurred me to stop using Linux in favor of BSD.

Re: Systemd Brand

#80

Post by JohnFen »

jolmg wrote: post #59
JohnFen wrote: post #30

> The log of OS components successfully starting up, as indicated by the green [ OK ], is what many people already identify systemd with. This made it a natural choice to derive our visual identity from. That's an interesting comment, since the green [ OK ] was in use for bootup messages long before systemd was a thing. Nothing about it says "systemd" to me.

The comment is true for me, though. When I see a linux machine boot up and display a series of aligned [ OK ]s on the left-hand side, I know instantly that it's using systemd. I don't remember seeing [ OK ] with sysvinit, or at least not as uniformly.

> I know instantly that it's using systemd.

Except you don't know really know that. It is objectively true that such usage was around for a long time before systemd in some major distros. I was seeing it at least 10 years ago, and I still see it on my systems that don't use systemd.

Post reply on HN