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

Debian committee members vote for systemd as init system

lists.debian.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 152 posts

Re: Debian committee members vote for systemd as init system

#121

Post by mercurial »

kashchei wrote: post #107
agumonkey wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PA was force-pushed too early, systemd got it's own momentum. AFAIK PA suffered from external unsolvable forces, like hardware/driver giving inconsistent if not false data to PA, causing failures; I believe systemd is shielded from this. The benefits (sound dependency based state) already outbid the other issue one might have with it (less freeform scriptability as in SV).

I see a pattern here. What guarantees that in ten years the same claims won't be made about systemd being pushed in 2014 "while not ready", but by 2023 all issues are ironed out after the whole thing was rewritten three times and was responsible for more security breaches than bind and sendmail combined over their history? In my opinion, there is no replacement for true modularity, simple, future-proof interfaces, an…

> I see a pattern here. What guarantees that in ten years the same claims won't be made about systemd being pushed in 2014 "while not ready", but by 2023 all issues are ironed out after the whole thing was rewritten three times and was responsible for more security breaches than bind and sendmail combined over their history?

I've been running systemd as my init system for at least a year. It's also used in Fedora. It is working pretty well by now.

> In my opinion, there is no replacement for true modularity

Systemd is an ecosystem. It contains a number of different binaries. They may be part of the same codebase, but so what?

>, simple, future-proof interfaces, and clear, human-readable and human-writable formats.

You mean, like systemd's unit file format, which is both more readable, and more specified, than the sysvinit boilerplate? If you mean journald, if you have rsyslog as well, you get your usual /var/log/syslog. Best of both worlds.

Re: Debian committee members vote for systemd as init system

#122

Post by qznc »

FooBarWidget wrote: post #100
crististm wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, when Lennart says that *BSD is irrelevant as if he was the judge of that... I don't see why he shouldn't be able take a little heat. After all - he is the god that wrote, you know, PulseAudio and Systemd. There are other hackers around that are not "Linux hackers" who might have a different view about the quality of Linux space. I tend to agree with them.

What does this suddenly have to do with BSD? kashchei claims that Lennart is incapable of ever producing good code and that all his creations must therefore die. Nothing about BSD.

I do not know if Poettering creates good code. He surely creates successful code, though: Gnome, PulseAudio, Avahi, systemd.

Re: Debian committee members vote for systemd as init system

#123

Post by kashchei »

mercurial wrote: post #121
kashchei wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see a pattern here. What guarantees that in ten years the same claims won't be made about systemd being pushed in 2014 "while not ready", but by 2023 all issues are ironed out after the whole thing was rewritten three times and was responsible for more security breaches than bind and sendmail combined over their history? In my opinion, there is no replacement for true modularity, simple, future-proof interfaces, an…

> I see a pattern here. What guarantees that in ten years the same claims won't be made about systemd being pushed in 2014 "while not ready", but by 2023 all issues are ironed out after the whole thing was rewritten three times and was responsible for more security breaches than bind and sendmail combined over their history? I've been running systemd as my init system for at least a year. It's also used in Fedora. It…

> Systemd is an ecosystem.

"Ecosystem" == vendor-managed closed system.

True interoperability does not produce "an ecosystem", it produces standards with (at least potentially) multiple implementations.

> It contains a number of different binaries. They may be part of the same codebase, but so what?

So it's contrary to the idea that modularity is achieved through clearly defined interfaces, so "the same codebase" is an unnecessary luxury for lazy designers.

Re: Debian committee members vote for systemd as init system

#124

Post by mercurial »

kashchei wrote: post #123
mercurial wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I see a pattern here. What guarantees that in ten years the same claims won't be made about systemd being pushed in 2014 "while not ready", but by 2023 all issues are ironed out after the whole thing was rewritten three times and was responsible for more security breaches than bind and sendmail combined over their history? I've been running systemd as my init system for at least a year. It's also used in Fedora. It…

> Systemd is an ecosystem. "Ecosystem" == vendor-managed closed system. True interoperability does not produce "an ecosystem", it produces standards with (at least potentially) multiple implementations. > It contains a number of different binaries. They may be part of the same codebase, but so what? So it's contrary to the idea that modularity is achieved through clearly defined interfaces, so "the same codebase" is…

> "Ecosystem" == vendor-managed closed system.

I'm sorry, but you're not making any sense. If a closed system is a project you can fork on github, with ~ 260 contributors and libraries like python-systemd, I don't know how you define "closed".

> So it's contrary to the idea that modularity is achieved through clearly defined interfaces, so "the same codebase" is an unnecessary luxury for lazy designers.

Right. So, the systemd Debian package on my machine has 21 separate binaries. Who in their right mind would want to have 21 separate repositories to keep in sync?

As for "cleanly defined interfaces", I don't know how having several different systems in the same codebase prevents that. Which parts of systemd do you feel are not well-documented and prevents you from writing code to interact with it, or replace part of it?

Re: Debian committee members vote for systemd as init system

#125

Post by __david__ »

kashchei wrote: post #77

I have to remind everyone that the author of systemd is Lennart Poettering, the guy behind Pulseaudio. I think, this is one "feature" that should outweigh all supposed benefits of this program. For those unfamiliar with Pulseaudio development, it's a third-generation audio subsystem (after OSS and ALSA with JACK forming two previous ones, and ESD being the beginning of the third) that is famous for overcomplicated, n…

And yet, it seems to be very popular and is the default audio system in many many Linux distros. It seems odd to me that such a poorly written and obtuse program would be readily embraced by the desktops and distros (and every other program that it needs to interface with).

If the downsides are so severe, it must have some really good upsides, otherwise no one would use it.

My personal anecdote is that Debian installed it for me on my long running system and that I've never touched a config file or otherwise looked at it at all and that my audio always works...

Re: Debian committee members vote for systemd as init system

#126

Post by mercurial »

ash wrote: post #48
rodgerd wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

upstart was always a mediocre to terrible sysv replacement. The fact it couldn't handle such insignificant programs like postfix natively speaks volumes.

When I wrote "replacement", I didn't mean that all sysv scripts must be replaced. Postfix sysv script works fine with upstart, doesn't it?

> When I wrote "replacement", I didn't mean that all sysv scripts must be replaced. Postfix sysv script works fine with upstart, doesn't it?

I'm honestly not sure if you are making fun of upstart or if you're trying to say that having to keep a sysv compatibility mode around because upstart is not able to handle an extremely common daemon is somehow acceptable.

Re: Debian committee members vote for systemd as init system

#127

Post by mercurial »

FooBarWidget wrote: post #95
SEJeff wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And why would Reshat want to move to a clearly inferior solution? Next you'll say they want to replace the super simple kickstart with preseed. Blasphemy I say!

To be fair, it did take me 15 minutes to write my first RPM. Documentation is pretty good. Writing my first Debian package, on the other hand, took me a day. Documentation is horrible. All tutorials are outdated. All the documents throw tons of jargon at me and just expect that I understand them. The tooling consists of 300 different tools with a lot of overlapping functionality, mostly for historical and backward-co…

Fully agreed. I don't really like the RPM format, though, it's a glorified makefile which makes it inconvenient to generate in an automated fashion. Though, from what I can see, the Debian maintainers have done a good effort at bringing together the various packaging resources in a single document [1]. And, well, packaging is a complicated topic.

1: http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/

Re: Debian committee members vote for systemd as init system

#128

Post by dfc »

asdfaoeu wrote: post #76
dfc wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is there to be or to not "be fair" about? mjn's comment was a value neutral statement of fact. There was nothing prejudicial in his comment.

He's referring to Steve Langasek not min.

What was "unfair"?

Re: Debian committee members vote for systemd as init system

#129

Post by jarvic »

Spittie wrote: post #2

Those are the votes for systemd: https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/02/msg00294.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/02/msg00283.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/02/msg00297.html https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/02/msg00282.html For anyone wondering, 4 votes are enough because Bdale's vote (the chairman of the Technical Committee) count as two votes in case of a draw. EDIT: see…

Everybody, get your popcorn: https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/02/msg00344.html

Re: Debian committee members vote for systemd as init system

#130

Post by agumonkey »

qwoeiu wrote: post #112

OpenRC is the only sysvinit alternative that even tries to comply with unix way and yet (judging from Ace Attorney retelling at least) sadly it is totally ignored by Debian devs.

it was mentioned a few times, missing documentation was probably a deal breaker
Post reply on HN