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

81–90 of 96 posts

Re: Systemd Brand

#81

Post by baked_ziti »

JohnFen wrote: post #79
esarbe wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dist…

Void Linux is a nice alternative which defaults to runit. I feel like I'll probably end up in the same spot though, switching to BSD.

Re: Systemd Brand

#82

Post by JohnFen »

baked_ziti wrote: post #81
JohnFen wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 dist…

Void Linux is a nice alternative which defaults to runit. I feel like I'll probably end up in the same spot though, switching to BSD.

Yes, there are a number of good distros that don't use systemd. But I see a problem coming down the pike -- as more and more applications start depending on systemd services, systemd will become less optional. For now, that problem can be addressed using shims, but I don't think that will be true forever.

I have a lot of Unix machines, so longevity is important to me. I'm switching to BSD now because it seems to me that the sooner I get that done, the less painful it will be to do. It's a huge task as it is!

Re: Systemd Brand

#83

Post by jolmg »

JohnFen wrote: post #80
jolmg wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, I could be reasonably sure that it was, at least before I learned today that there were other init systems that also displayed their output like that. So, the statement:

> the green [ OK ], is what many people already identify systemd with

is true for people like me that were not familiar with those other systems.

For example, most probably use Ubuntu (and probably only Ubuntu), and as far as I know it didn't display those [ OK ] until after it adopted systemd. So, at least there's a very large portion of users that never saw those [ OK ] until systemd came along.

If I remember right, it was the same case with Archlinux, which is where I was first exposed to systemd.

Imagine, the biggest news in your distro is the migration to systemd and the first and most obvious change you notice is that the boot process has all these neat [ OK ]s instead of random text. I think it's to be expected that people would identify systemd with that.

Re: Systemd Brand

#84

Post by edoceo »

SahAssar wrote: post #76
edoceo wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Oh, I was just piling on another comment that's a dig at the ever increasing footprint of SystemD. I'm not opposed to branding effort by any FOSS project, identity is important. This effort by SystemD is a "good thing" but, I'm not likely rep their kit

Re: Systemd Brand

#85

Post by baked_ziti »

jolmg wrote: post #83
JohnFen wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Well, I could be reasonably sure that it was, at least before I learned today that there were other init systems that also displayed their output like that. So, the statement: > the green [ OK ], is what many people already identify systemd with is true for people like me that were not familiar with those other systems. For example, most probably use Ubuntu (and probably only Ubuntu), and as far as I know it didn't d…

I guess you're right, your experience is universal. SystemD really IS where that comes from.

Re: Systemd Brand

#86

Post by w0land »

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.

No no no. I recall it from the firs linux distros i used, from 96 - 97, rpm based, both SuSE and RedHat.

Re: Systemd Brand

#87

Post by baked_ziti »

JackRabbitSlim wrote: post #61
artonge wrote: post #21

Can someone share the reasons why systemd generate so much hate ? I seems to me that it is quite useful and easy to use.

Let me ask the other end. What context do you have to compare it to what it replaced for any given use case? Can you tell me why its good ? Can you tell me why its better? What problems it "fixes"? Reasons to dislike systemd as a professional sys admin? https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/2402 - brick EFI based systems! https://twitter.com/bitfield/status/736868148348063744?lang=... -- Systemd broke your very m…

>https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/2402

Well that seemed needlessly contentious. What a shame.

Re: Systemd Brand

#88

Post by modernerd »

alchemism wrote: post #41
fwxwi wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A logo, a palette of colours, a typography, brand guidelines... all for an init system for Linux. They think they are fucking Coca Cola. If you don't think that's just insane... well I'm just getting old I guess.

You should see the slick graphic skateboard decks for CNCF projects they have at KubeCon. The Prometheus one is killer. This isn’t your grandfather’s open source, no sir. (Edit: check the #k8sordie tag on Twitter)

The decks: https://mobile.twitter.com/danielpopes/status/11968503214918...

Re: Systemd Brand

#89

Post by fstephany »

atonse wrote: post #56

I too don't get the systemd hate. I like systemd precisely because the components are nicely integrated with each other. It seems like what we would design after learning the lessons of the last 15-20 years of how to manage a linux/unix machine. I would assume more programmer types would like that the redundant "intelligence" that was placed in every init script is now gone, and replaced by a common core that allows…

You might be interested in Nushell[1]. One of their inspiration is PowerShell.

[1]: https://book.nushell.sh/en/introduction

Re: Systemd Brand

#90

Post by forgottenpass »

artonge wrote: post #21

Can someone share the reasons why systemd generate so much hate ? I seems to me that it is quite useful and easy to use.

> Can someone share the reasons why systemd generate so much hate ?

A handful of improvements came tied to a bunch of new constraints and limitations that were not mandatory to get those improvements. This annoys the people who deal in those less visible areas and got the short end of the stick.

A large chunk of what systemd does could have been implemented without also sprawling it's tentacles and cross-dependencies into everything. Had they rolled out that featureset first and given the rest of the ecosystem some time to evolve in response adoption would have gone much smoother.

Post reply on HN