Why pro-systemd and anti-systemd people will never get along
uselessd.darknedgy.net
Why pro-systemd and anti-systemd people will never get along
1–10 of 113 posts
Re: Why pro-systemd and anti-systemd people will never get along
#2Could someone ELI5 this pro-systemd/anti-systemd thing?
Re: Why pro-systemd and anti-systemd people will never get along
#3Interesting discussion! I would have liked it if the author had provided some background information (for the uninitiated) about some of the other related issues mentioned. For example, what was meant by "the horrors of PulseAudio", "the udev debacle", and why was HAL bad?
I realize that I could probably find out "bad things about HAL" via internet searching, but it would be more interesting to see the author's take on the issues in the context of the article.
Re: Why pro-systemd and anti-systemd people will never get along
#4[deleted]
Re: Why pro-systemd and anti-systemd people will never get along
#5I think most of it is ok, such as the init system, except the logging. Why did they have to touch logging, and change everything about it, and put it in a non-text format...
Re: Why pro-systemd and anti-systemd people will never get along
#6Interesting discussion! I would have liked it if the author had provided some background information (for the uninitiated) about some of the other related issues mentioned. For example, what was meant by "the horrors of PulseAudio", "the udev debacle", and why was HAL bad? I realize that I could probably find out "bad things about HAL" via internet searching, but it would be more interesting to see the author's take…
I kind of stitched this essay together haphazardly, and it certainly does require some background knowledge to fully understand.
Nonetheless, "the udev debacle" refers to systemd merging udev into its codebase, along with tying it to systemd's shared files, the recent "debug" parameter fiasco and the rather blunt statement by Lennart concerning migrating the transport to kdbus: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/systemd-devel/2014-May...
PulseAudio (originally PolypAudio) is a networked sound server most often used in Linux systems coming with a variety of centralized features (see here: http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/PulseAudio/About/), which proved to be highly controversial initially and less so to this day. People realized it was buggy and unstable, and different factors were blamed: poor integration, sloppy ALSA drivers, or PulseAudio itself. The most common narrative these days is "PulseAudio was bad because Ubuntu rushed it", but I haven't studied things in enough detail to pinpoint exact reasons.
As for HALd, it did solve problems at the time, but I'll quote the Ubuntu wiki: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Halsectomy
Re: Why pro-systemd and anti-systemd people will never get along
#7I see the whole pro/anti systemd as a philosophical debate. Basically each part is arguing where the complexity should be in the system and how dense it should be distributed.
I think we need two competing init systems to really know maybe in 5-10 years what the best trade-offs are. A modern sys V init and systemd.
Re: Why pro-systemd and anti-systemd people will never get along
#8emacs is the one true editor...
same thing all over again :-P
Re: Why pro-systemd and anti-systemd people will never get along
#9I have none of these objections to systemd. My objection is that it's both pervasive and unauditable. I can accept one or the other.
I don't have to rely on 'many eyes' to tell me what's going on with init scripts, I can just look. systemd is sprawling, has no particular philosophy that I can notice, and all of its internal systems are heavily interconnected; this leads me to expect that very few people will be auditing the code that don't work for redhat, because very few will understand it. I expect it to increase the vulnerability of the entire system to accidental or intentionally inserted bugs by an order of magnitude. Therefore, I'd like to see it in the wild for 5 or so years before personally using it - but it looks as if to continue using many linux applications I have to switch to it while it is being written.
I don't get the point (other than cgroups and boot times), I don't get the hurry, and I don't get the animosity to alternate and legacy init systems, and to alternate Unices.
Re: Why pro-systemd and anti-systemd people will never get along
#10I see the whole pro/anti systemd as a philosophical debate. Basically each part is arguing where the complexity should be in the system and how dense it should be distributed. I think we need two competing init systems to really know maybe in 5-10 years what the best trade-offs are. A modern sys V init and systemd.
Why two? As many as people would write. There is already a bunch of em.