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

Operating Systems Without Systemd

annihilatormodule.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 166 posts

Re: Operating Systems Without Systemd

#21

Post by yarrel »

shrimp_emoji wrote: post #18
Teknoman117 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starting this off with a disclaimer that these are things I've heard or read, and aren't necessarily a statement of my views. The controversy mainly surrounds the claim that it is a single package that tries to do way too much by itself. Calling systemd an init system isn't correct. systemd contains many things, one of which is an init system. The other claim is that the systemd developers aren't open to much outside…

For example, systemd timers (timed systemctl services) are like cron if cron was slightly more complicated and had very good logging. :3

journalctl is a text adventure fever dream. Do systemd timers use a different logging system?

Re: Operating Systems Without Systemd

#23

Post by Teknoman117 »

wtallis wrote: post #20
jbnorth wrote: post #11

Maybe I'm just out of the loop but what is the controversy regarding systemd?

There are many. Most amount to complaints about sysadmins having to re-learn a lot of stuff, much of which didn't actually need to be changed, at least not so thoroughly. Early on, most of the complaints centered around the poor migration path, the abandonment of plain text log files, and the absurdity of high-level user-facing software like the Gnome desktop environment having a hard dependency on a particular init…

Pretty much. There are components of systemd I really like. systemd-logind is really neat, it makes dealing with drm (direct rendering) devices nice by having a service where you can request access to GPUs without bumping into the problem of one process opened the endpoint and has exclusive control. It also makes dealing with machine events like closing your laptop's screen simple if you use a minimalistic window manager like i3.

systemd-resolved is nice if you're using systemd's network configuration system, but it's a pain when you're trying to run your own DNS server.

udev really shouldn't hard depend on systemd. I perfectly understand having some systemd specific integration, but why make it mandatory?

There being said, various people have been working to cut it into separate components (eudev, elogind, etc.)

Re: Operating Systems Without Systemd

#24

Post by NickNameNick »

jbnorth wrote: post #11

Maybe I'm just out of the loop but what is the controversy regarding systemd?

The latest round of controversy is probably because They're pushing the new 'homed' component, which is supposed to change up how home directories (and user accounts) are managed.

It's supposed to enable easier encryption of home directories, but breaks ssh logins.

Therefore it's probably only suitable for multi-user systems (which need to protect home directoried from other users) that are also never accessed remotely - a subset consisting of approximately 0 systems.

Re: Operating Systems Without Systemd

#25

Post by reshie »

justinsaccount wrote: post #8
k__ wrote: post #2

I think, that sums up what's wrong with the Linux world right now. NixOS and GuixSD being the next generation of distributions and people are calling it "neat project with some unique features, but it is more fun as an intellectual curiosity than as something practical" while arguing if a distribution should use Systemd or not...

The linux world is busy getting shit done. Ignore the children arguing over init systems.

the problem is how integrated it is with everything. it is hard to have a choice in your init(not that there was much a choice to begin with). it takes away from modularity.

Re: Operating Systems Without Systemd

#28

Post by CuriousCosmic »

jbnorth wrote: post #11

Maybe I'm just out of the loop but what is the controversy regarding systemd?

Part of it is that it is a more or less monolithic package that started as an init system and now does more than some people would like.

This results in certain packages switching to require systemd modules(gnome & udev) and essentially locking systems without systemd out of using said software. Communities supporting non-systemd init systems now have to maintain forks of these modules so that they can keep these packages supported on their distros.

The other issue, which is the issue I care more about is that it does these things in a way that breaks compatibility with existing workflows and exposes it to a number of different issues due to its increased complexity.

Don't get me wrong, systemd is excellent in many ways but like many others, I am not a fan of it overall and choose not to use it where possible.

An example of something very controversal about systemd: journald.

journald is a replacement for the system journaling daemon and is a generally very good journaling daemon. It is in many ways more performant than other journaling daemons and can be easier to use as well. The issues however come largely from the fact that it uses a binary log format. This breaks the ability for other tools access logs nearly as easily unless explicit support for the interaction is added by either journald or the tool in question.

Re: Operating Systems Without Systemd

#29

Post by thawaway1837 »

yarrel wrote: post #19
Teknoman117 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Starting this off with a disclaimer that these are things I've heard or read, and aren't necessarily a statement of my views. The controversy mainly surrounds the claim that it is a single package that tries to do way too much by itself. Calling systemd an init system isn't correct. systemd contains many things, one of which is an init system. The other claim is that the systemd developers aren't open to much outside…

It tries to do too much, badly, and with an air of entitlement around intentionally breaking things. Change is good, so let's change away from systemd.

If someone is able to create something that is half as good as systemd then distros will switch time it.

The thing is that systemd solves a lot of problems for distros in a good enough way (frankly, currently in a way that is better than any existing alternative) that they are happy to have systemd deal with those issues while they focus on the stuff the distro makers are interested in.

Post reply on HN