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

Systemd redux: The end of Linux

blog.lusis.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 464 posts

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#41

Post by johnny22 »

gnufied wrote: post #37
keyle wrote: post #3

Can someone put in Layman's terms what the change entails and why it would be the end of Linux?

If you read over Wikipedia page of systemd, you will find out - it just does not replace `init` system, but whole lot more. Systemd is a collection of 64 binaries which manage login daemon, networking (DHCP) etc. In other words to some it seems like lot of not-so-tested software replacing software that was well tested. from an outsider perspective two things seem problematic: 1. A lot of Linux software worked on prin…

it was tested enough to ship in redhat enterprise linux 7.

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#42

Post by [deleted] »

fidotron wrote: post #9
keyle wrote: post #3

Can someone put in Layman's terms what the change entails and why it would be the end of Linux?

It's not the end of Linux. It's the final death of the idea that Linux should just idly continue to act like a clone of some vague Unix of old because it was better when men were men and their computers had obscure RISC processors with billions of registers. Linux hasn't really been that way for an incredibly long time, but a large proportion of the userbase still cling to this notion, some for ideological reasons, a…

[deleted]

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#43

Post by jude- »

sandGorgon wrote: post #35

>single parent hierarchy for namespaces Predictably, all the blame is laid at systemd's feet. The current churn is happening, because all of Linux's core developers (kernel and user space) are wanting that change...to push the envelope. For example, the current change in CGroup's namespaces are because kernel is mandating that the current cgroup access mechanism be deprecated. They want a single writer to Cgroups. Sy…

I'm pretty sure it's Greg KH who's running kdbus these days [0]. At least, he's the one who submitted the patch to lkml [1].

[0] https://github.com/gregkh/kdbus [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/10/29/854

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#44

Post by pnathan »

andyl wrote: post #7

Everything I read about SystemD is negative. Negative on the technology, negative on the people who created it. Nothing positive. How is it that SystemD is about to dominate the market? Who is driving SystemD adoption, and why?

My impression is that a very small number of people (core maintainers) actually drive adoption of technologies - persuade them & you have altered the cruise ship.

For me, I plan to stay as far away from systemd as I can; it's an abomination of software design.

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#45

Post by rodgerd »

andyl wrote: post #7

Everything I read about SystemD is negative. Negative on the technology, negative on the people who created it. Nothing positive. How is it that SystemD is about to dominate the market? Who is driving SystemD adoption, and why?

Well, that's not surprising, because you clearly haven't even read the documentation. Or you'd know how to spell it.

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#46

Post by nisa »

sandGorgon wrote: post #35

>single parent hierarchy for namespaces Predictably, all the blame is laid at systemd's feet. The current churn is happening, because all of Linux's core developers (kernel and user space) are wanting that change...to push the envelope. For example, the current change in CGroup's namespaces are because kernel is mandating that the current cgroup access mechanism be deprecated. They want a single writer to Cgroups. Sy…

You mean this Kay Sievers? http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/04/05/torvalds_sievers_dus... - It's basically the buddy of Lennart at Red Hat - at least that is my impression from far away..

systemd may be nice but it's coming from Redhat and cgroups are changed due to because systemd folks wanted it that way as far as I followed that debate...

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#47

Post by ginko »

zanny wrote: post #33
baldfat wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah we need to go back to when distro A and B had totally different versions of everything since it was so much work to get things working. Now we are close to having a OS where you can seriously just expect anything "Linux" to just run. Bad I guess to some :P

Seriously, once the systemd convergence is over, I can finally start advocating Ubuntu on workstations everywhere because it will finally have commonality with server infrastructure. The last frontier after that is package format convergence, and Lennart has said repeatedly he intends to use the systemd monoculture to push a common package format, which is a really good thing for me. Right now I have most clients run…

>The last frontier after that is package format convergence, and Lennart has said repeatedly he intends to use the systemd monoculture to push a common package format, which is a really good thing for me.

Great, so now instead of adopting a package system system with a solid theoretical foundation like Nix or guix, we're going to dump all dependencies into fat binaries and more or less end up with the solution the NeXT people came up with in the 90s. Such progress.

EDIT:

Not to mention that Lennart's proposed package system[1] would depend on btrfs-specific features, adding even more code coupling.

[1]http://0pointer.net/blog/revisiting-how-we-put-together-linu...

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#48

Post by pnathan »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #39
andyl wrote: post #7

Everything I read about SystemD is negative. Negative on the technology, negative on the people who created it. Nothing positive. How is it that SystemD is about to dominate the market? Who is driving SystemD adoption, and why?

It's so terrible (literally the devil incarnate, sacrifice your offspring now) that it's already been adopted by: - Arch Linux - Fedora/RHEL - openSUSE/SLES - Mageia - NixOS - CoreOS - Sabayon - Debian and Ubuntu in the near future > Everything I read about SystemD is negative. Negative on the technology, negative on the people who created it. Nothing positive. There's a vocal group that seem to think it's some Red H…

Well, in fairness, I did have a RH chap tell me to my face several weeks ago that Linux needs to replicate the Windows registry model and stop using the /etc text file approach. So I have a certain sympathy for the idea of Red Hat conspiracy (what is a company anyway but a conspiracy to produce work & products for hire?).

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#49

Post by rodgerd »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #39
andyl wrote: post #7

Everything I read about SystemD is negative. Negative on the technology, negative on the people who created it. Nothing positive. How is it that SystemD is about to dominate the market? Who is driving SystemD adoption, and why?

It's so terrible (literally the devil incarnate, sacrifice your offspring now) that it's already been adopted by: - Arch Linux - Fedora/RHEL - openSUSE/SLES - Mageia - NixOS - CoreOS - Sabayon - Debian and Ubuntu in the near future > Everything I read about SystemD is negative. Negative on the technology, negative on the people who created it. Nothing positive. There's a vocal group that seem to think it's some Red H…

> The fact that the article says that Solaris is the 'best of breed stack right now'

That well-known paragon of SysV systems 8)

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#50

Post by simoncion »

gnufied wrote: post #28
noobermin wrote: post #4

It has been said before, but it deserves mention, there are alternatives to Systemd out there, like OpenRC which has been around for a while, and other, newer projects like Uselessd. Of course, whether those other options will be as well supported and developed as systemd remains to be seen.

I am no expert on this but apparently when Gentoo developers tried integrating OpenRC they ran into too many bugs. http://blogs.gnome.org/ovitters/2013/09/25/gnome-and-loginds...

> ...apparently when Gentoo developers tried integrating OpenRC they ran into too many bugs.

You are certainly no expert on this.

I've been using Gentoo since 1.4... back in 2003, maybe 2004. I vaguely remember when Stable Gentoo was switched to OpenRC, which happened in mid 2011. Unstable Gentoo (which I ran -and still run- on my laptop) switched to OpenRC much earlier [but that date I cannot remember].

What the first topic in the blog post that you linked to is really saying is:

"We Gnome developers still claim that recent Gnomes don't require systemd. We stand by this assertion. Recent Gnomes only require init and system management daemons that behave exactly like systemd in pretty much every aspect; they don't actually require you to have systemd installed.

It's a pity that developers don't want to spend time re-working their init and system management software to be systemd clones. If they did, then the world would finally understand why we Gnome developers continue to assert that Gnome doesn't require systemd."

Post reply on HN