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

Shall we fork Debian?

debianfork.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 284 posts

Re: Shall we fork Debian?

#191

Post by icebraining »

perlpimp wrote: post #139

I am not sure why debian needs to force replace sysvinit, can't they have systemd-debian distro that will have all the shiny stuff in it? and maybe have it grow and if it won't go down with their userbase then they can discontinue it? Everyone moving to systemd seems a bit fishy. C is very insecure for daemon coding with all other options why no use go for example? There might be some influence on behalf interested g…

I am not sure why debian needs to force replace sysvinit, can't they have systemd-debian distro that will have all the shiny stuff in it? and maybe have it grow and if it won't go down with their userbase then they can discontinue it?

Go read the arguments, there are many reasons why they decided to switch. A big part of it is that Gnome/KDE and other upstream software is already dependent on systemd, so keeping SysV means extra effort to fix that.

C is very insecure for daemon coding with all other options why no use go for example?

What do you think the current init system is written in? That's not a reason to keep sysv.

Re: Shall we fork Debian?

#192

Post by [deleted] »

dsr_ wrote: post #184
StevePerkins wrote: post #132

From the source: ..... > Why don't you do that [i.e. vote against systemd] yourselves? > > We are excluded from voting on the issue: only few of us > have the time and patience to interact with Debian on a > voluntary basis. ..... In that case, you don't have the time and patience to operate and maintain a worthwhile and ongoing Debian fork. In that case, there is no substance to the "question" you're raising, becaus…

Only a Debian Developer can vote on a General Resolution. The process for becoming a DD can take, and I am not joking, years. See the actual stats here: https://nm.debian.org/public/stats/ The process is oriented towards supporting the development and maintenance of packages in Debian, which is probably as it should be, but it means that the viewpoints of people who actually use Debian -- and the vast majority of the…

[deleted]

Re: Shall we fork Debian?

#193

Post by Zancarius »

m45t3r wrote: post #138
grifferz wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

systemd has a number of features which are of interest to server operators, especially those who use containers, which may well be many of us before long. Running systemd as pid 1 does not imply running a desktop environment. I have plenty of VPS customers running systemd as pid 1 in 512MiB RAM. Running systemd as pid 1 doesn't imply having every single binary and subsystem of systemd running. I would encourage you t…

Yep, this is true. The only thing I concluded from this page is "I am an old time Debian admin, I don't want to learn another way to configure my system that is not a bunch of shell scripts, so I am gonna bitch about this decision and create a fork". Actually, I find it's funny how anti-systemd people nowadays claim that "systemd is a init for desktop systems" since Gnome adopt something unrelated to the _init_ part…

> Yep, this is true. The only thing I concluded from this page is "I am an old time Debian admin, I don't want to learn another way to configure my system that is not a bunch of shell scripts, so I am gonna bitch about this decision and create a fork".

Yet the oddly amusing part is how systemd isn't difficult to learn. The only valid complaint against systemd IMO is its departure from Unix philosophy, but for some parts of the nix ecosystem, I can't help but think that boat sailed long ago.

I was hugely resistant to systemd when Arch first switched, but I learned to appreciate it (the simplicity of unit files won me over). This came about a year and a half into my journey with Arch Linux when I was still learning that the easiest way to use the distribution isn't to fret over change but to embrace it. Otherwise you'll be implementing fragile workarounds that break every time you update.

Though, journalctl still annoys me.

Sure, I can understand some of the hate directed to systemd simply on the merit that it does* do things differently--but it's hard to believe that the vitriol and insults from the anti-systemd camp are likely to help anyone's cause.

Personally, I like it, it works, I've not encountered the stability issues or other bits of weirdness some folks seem to insist regularly occurs (maybe it's distro-specific), but I'm also OK with being a statistical outlier. Or perhaps the anti-systemd crowd is disproportionately noisy.

Re: Shall we fork Debian?

#194

Post by state_machine »

eloisant wrote: post #188
IgorPartola wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I came here to say exactly that. "We don't have time to work with the Debian folks on a solution, but have time to create our own distro." Right. Then again, they should go for it. If nobody but them uses it, that's that. If it gains traction, cool. On another point: why the hell would you have a choice in init systems? As a user of the OS, I care that the proceses start, stop, and keep running. I don't care how. A p…

Because when you're a sysadmin, you often have to write init scripts for the software you have to run. Typically, you run servers for a company, the developers wrote a web application and the whole point of the server is to serve that app. You need init scripts to start, stop monitor this app. The choice of init system makes a big difference in your daily life.

systemd doesn't care what it is starting, so you can hand it a shell script just as easily as anything else.

See item #4 on http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html

Re: Shall we fork Debian?

#196

Post by vezzy-fnord »

zanny wrote: post #178
feld wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody said you had to futz with it. Ideally packages would ship with the correct init scripts and things would work exactly as you expect them to, or as they did. Unlike with systemd. Why the hell would you have a choice in kernels? Why the hell would you have a choice in filesystems? Why the hell would you have a choice in sound systems? Why the hell would you have a choice in desktop environments?

There needs to be a distinction between Linux distros for us, and Linux distros for everyone else. For us, we care about all that stuff, because we are engrossed in it daily. For everyone else, they will never touch or understand and / or should never need to understand what a kernel, filesystem, sound system, or desktop environment is. To them, the computer is a tool, not an environment, and to use it is to press bu…

To them, the computer is a tool, not an environment, and to use it is to press buttons to get some tangible result you want from it, and the buttons you have are not buttons you are going to know how to change.

Your general point is correct, but the analogy you're using is incorrect.

It's not tool/environment, but rather, it's tool/appliance.

The fundamental cultural shift going on between many anti-systemd and pro-systemd people is that the former want the computer to be a tool, something that with proper discipline and skill can yield great things, whereas the latter want it to be an appliance - something that you fire and forget, and is meant to be inflexible and that "just works".

The problems, as always, are that tools have learning curves and often need to be composed into more complex configurations to yield more powerful results. Whereas appliances, although they "just work", they work only for predictable and formulaic configurations that the appliance explicitly expects, and proceed to break down and reveal their opaque innards when used for more esoteric or unusual situations.

In summary, the anti-systemd side wants to do things with their computer, and the pro-systemd side wants their computer to do things for them.

This is why there will never be a consensus. It's also why systemd opponents will often resort to stupidity like defending the messy hairball of SysV initscripts, while proponents will just casually look at unit file configuration being outwardly simpler and not think of the bigger picture.

Re: Shall we fork Debian?

#197

Post by XorNot »

monochr wrote: post #180
XorNot wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because a lot of people are speaking very authoritatively, yet with little content, about systemd. They raise objections based on partial or inaccurate information. Various bans on discussion are happening precisely because it's apparent that a number of people are no longer interested in useful discussion, so much as creating chaos until they get their way. Manifestly described by the idea that people without time t…

If partial or inaccurate information about a subject was the criteria for not talking about it then Torvalds should have shut up about kernels and let Minix be the default for everything. Read the exchange between him and Tanenbaum and tell me it doesn't sound like two douche bags flame baiting each other with Torvalds sounding like he has no idea what he's talking about: http://oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/a…

In which case we don't need to debate who's spreading FUD.

But people who want to take part in a debate should expect be held to account for the things they say, and in the case of systemd a lot of people are spreading a lot of misinformation. That's forgivable, I make stupid mistakes and misremember things all the time, but it's sure starting to seem like there's a very casual disregard for the truth and with it, any possibility of solid debate.

Not to mention the usual crowd of trolls who are just happy to have something that'll start an argument.

Re: Shall we fork Debian?

#198

Post by Zancarius »

LeonidasXIV wrote: post #189
m45t3r wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, this is true. The only thing I concluded from this page is "I am an old time Debian admin, I don't want to learn another way to configure my system that is not a bunch of shell scripts, so I am gonna bitch about this decision and create a fork". Actually, I find it's funny how anti-systemd people nowadays claim that "systemd is a init for desktop systems" since Gnome adopt something unrelated to the _init_ part…

Actually, systemd is pretty awesome for servers. I wrote a simple program that outputs to stdout and ran it under systemd. * it automatically cares about starting it * it automatically puts the programs stdout into the journal (from which I can filter the output of my specific program without having to syslog() everything) * it allows me to run the program as user with one line in the INI unit file * it allows to mak…

You hit on some of the points that won me over when I first started using systemd. Writing services is easy and logging their output is a breeze. Not having to fret with supervisor processes or daemonizing code shifts some of the complexity out of the application and into the init process[1] where I'd argue process management ought to live.

Given that targeting sysvinit for all the various sysvinit-compatible systems out there can be an exercise in frustration (OpenRC, Debian, the *BSDs, all of whom have subtly different flavors for starting and stopping processes) better left to individual maintainers, it's nice that I can write a unit file and pretty much have it work on any system that's running systemd.

[1] I'm aware that some people might argue additional complexity doesn't belong in an init. That's fine. You're probably right.

Re: Shall we fork Debian?

#199

Post by ThinkBeat »

The person(s) who wrote up this little hissy fit, does not seem able to, nor want to, invest the effort to create and maintain a fork.

"Unless you meet our demands, we shall fork".

More like

"You gotta do what I say, or I am going to scream shout and bang my hands against the wall for a while".

or

"Please someone, fork Debian in the way we want it, and spend your time and energy maintaining it, because we cant be bothered to".

Also, disagreeing with the direction of Debian is not a risky move. Why not sign your names to it? Is this again because you wish to avoid any personal responsibility and work?. If you are well known in the Unix/Linux/Oss community signing your name would give weight to the hissyfit.

Re: Shall we fork Debian?

#200

Post by ThinkBeat »

The person(s) who wrote up this little hissy fit, does not seem able to, nor want to, invest the effort to create and maintain a fork.

"Unless you meet our demands, we shall fork".

More like

"You gotta do what I say, or I am going to scream shout and bang my hands against the wall for a while".

or

"Please someone, fork Debian in the way we want it, and spend your time and energy maintaining it, because we cant be bothered to".

Also, disagreeing with the direction of Debian is not a risky move. Why not sign your names to it? Is this again because you wish to avoid any personal responsibility and work?. If you are well known in the Unix/Linux/Oss community signing your name would give weight to the hissyfit.

Post reply on HN