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

71–80 of 464 posts

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#71

Post by nisa »

sandGorgon wrote: post #69
nisa wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he speaks for sysadmins. If you are using cgroups at the moment you can write scripts for them. It's a mounted filesystem. The change forces you to use systemd for cgroups as only systemd is able to write to cgroups. The argument is: If you don't like systemd implement an alternative that does this for you. Some for kdbus and udev, netlink... The article is right - it's not Linux as we know it anymore for bet…

That is the change that kernel wants, not systemd. They want to prevent direct access to Cgroups, other than through a single writer. This change is happening regardless of whether you want systemd or not.

You are right. I remembered reading an article from 2013 that gave the impression that the changes where related to systemd and then it shed a different light on the issues (https://lwn.net/Articles/555922/) but it looks like the features are mostly back and in a better shape: http://lwn.net/Articles/601840/

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#72

Post by simoncion »

gnufied wrote: post #64
simoncion wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...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 fi…

from same article: "Apparently GDM 3.8 assumes that an init system will also clean up any processes it started. This is what systemd does, but OpenRC didn’t support that. Which means that GDM under OpenRC would leave lingering processes around, making it impossible to restart/shutdown GDM properly. The Gentoo GNOME packagers had to add this ability to OpenRC themselves. Then there were various other small little bugs…

Unless you're ovitters, I never claimed that you claimed that Gnome requires systemd. You did -however- say that "...when Gentoo developers tried integrating OpenRC they ran into too many bugs."

Your statement is not true. Stable Gentoo had its default init system switched to OpenRC in mid 2011. OpenRC has been great for Gentoo.

"Apparently GDM 3.8 assumes that an init system will also clean up any processes it started."

AFAIK, the only Linux init system that behaves in this way is systemd. Expecting this behavior means that one expects one's init system to behave like systemd. It is disingenuous to claim that one's software doesn't require the use of systemd when it relies on process management -and other- behavior that can only be found in systemd.

To make an analogy: I write software that makes extensive use of cgroups. If I said:

"My software doesn't require Linux. We could run on *BSD if they'd just implement cgroups, and Windows if they'd just implement POSIX and cgroups. It's a pity that they don't make this effort, and I don't have the bandwidth to help them out, but my software doesn't require you to use Linux to run it."

you would likely accuse me of sophistry; and with good reason!

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#73

Post by simoncion »

jude- wrote: post #68
simoncion wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...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 fi…

That's the fundamental problem with DBus-exposed interfaces: they're APIs that get marketed as abstractions. APIs don't leave much room for different interpretations, meaning you'll end up rewriting the component you're trying to avoid using in the first place.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. If you want to avoid using a particular piece of software, but need to adhere to its API, you're going to either reimplement parts of it, or use someone else's reimplementation. There's really no way around that. It's a fundamental problem shared by all software.

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#74

Post by nisa »

sandGorgon wrote: post #66
nisa wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Yes, we are veering dangerously close to Godwin's Law : not only is Lennart and systemd evil, but everyone who agreed or contributed to it.

No need for personal attacks. I just think the article as some merit and your comment gives the impression that these people are not connected. I just wanted to point that out.

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#75

Post by vezzy-fnord »

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.

There's been at least ten or so sysvinit alternatives that have existed before systemd. Some newer ones have appeared since then, most promising of which is nosh.

That said, all of the sysvinit replacements back then (eINIT, initng, depinit, s6, perp, etc.) never made it and were all ignored during their time.

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#76

Post by jude- »

simoncion wrote: post #73
jude- wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the fundamental problem with DBus-exposed interfaces: they're APIs that get marketed as abstractions. APIs don't leave much room for different interpretations, meaning you'll end up rewriting the component you're trying to avoid using in the first place.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. If you want to avoid using a particular piece of software, but need to adhere to its API, you're going to either reimplement parts of it, or use someone else's reimplementation. There's really no way around that. It's a fundamental problem shared by all software.

Exactly. I'm (obliquely) affirming your argument that the commonly thrown-around excuse of "you don't need systemd, you just need something that implements its DBus interfaces" is a distinction without a difference.

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#77

Post by Sanddancer »

Andys wrote: post #59

> Freebsd has jails which is a much more baked technology and implementation than LXC Disagree! 1. FreeBSD has nothing like cgroups or namespaces. You can't apply cpu or memory limits to a whole jail, only individual processes in that jail. 2. it is early days for virtual network cards and ethernet bridging and jails: you have to recompile kernel to add VIMAGE.

You've been able to apply cpu and memory limits to entire jails since 10.0 was released through the rctl mechanism.

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#78

Post by lokedhs »

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…

Solaris does not use systemd. It uses systemctl. I'll leave it to others to debate their individual merits, but I personally like the Solaris system a lot.

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#79

Post by stock_toaster »

derengel wrote: post #23

Are there any reliable VPS providers that offer FreeBSD?

There are quite a few. Some decent ones I have heard good things about:

* rootbsd.net * arp networks * vultr

There are quite a few cheap-ish dedicated server vendors out there that can either be ordered with FreeBSD or provide some means to install it yourself.

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#80

Post by AaronFriel »

Perhaps this is a controversial idea, but is this not just someone finally taking the tried and true Open Source "advice" to heart?

That is, every time I've reported something is broken, wonky, doesn't work reliably, et cetera, I've been told, "Submit a patch.", "Write some code.", or worse, "Implement it yourself."

Someone finally got fed up with the haphazard state of affairs in Linux-land. Fed up with the fragmented and sometimes many places you have to look for error logs. Fed up with the many files you have to edit to configure the network correctly (different on every major distribution). Fed up with the half dozen ways to configure X, where X is a common function to every modern operating system.

It seems Lennart has taken the advice and followed through, and distribution maintainers liked it. They liked the idea that someone was taking all this complicated work - this dirty, boring to write and maintain code - and making their lives easier. Why else would nearly every distribution be on board?

Systemd is offering a more compelling solution than anyone else, and if you don't like it, well, you should submit a patch, write some code, or implement it yourself.

Post reply on HN