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

121–130 of 464 posts

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#121

Post by badgersandjam »

paulfurtado wrote: post #117
badgersandjam wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had no opinion on systemd until yesterday. In fact I had a glace or two at the code and it's pretty clean and I liked the rough objectives laid out. I installed CentOS 7 on a machine last night that we're replacing CentOS 6 on and was poked in the face with timedatectl and dbus problems for an entire hour, some of which were intermittent. Debugging these issues is a horrific pain. I lost 4 hours on it. I've never l…

Out of curiosity, what ended up being the root cause of the timedatectl problem?

Absolutely no idea. It just went away spontaneously which is even more worrying as that suggests the system is non-deterministic.

I don't have the error on my phone which I'm on at the moment but it threw a dbus error with no debug info.

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#122

Post by nitrogen »

pnathan wrote: post #48
Mikeb85 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?).

I was rather unhappy when Samba took this approach as well, ages ago (mimicking the registry as a configuration store, not just as a hack to talk to Windows systems).

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#123

Post by badgersandjam »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #105

Really bored of this nonsense at this point. Take this for example: If you absolutely MUST run Linux, my recommendation is to minimize the interaction with the base distro as much as possible. CoreOS (when it’s finally baked and production ready) can bring you an LXC based ecosystem Systemd is absolutely key to how CoreOS works. It's the basis for the distributed init system it provides — a major selling point. Takin…

Many large decisions have been made by idiots, badly. Blindly accepting consensus as a rational choice without a counterpoint had caused many years of suffering for the human race from wars to bad science to bad medicine.

Whilst I agree that the blog is probably hocum, there's nothing wrong with critical thinking.

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#124

Post by pjmlp »

digi_owl wrote: post #102
jude- wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you dont have to use journald. you can send back from journald to syslog That's a contradiction. You're running journald even if it's dead weight.

And if journald goes belly up, no logs for syslog...

As if syslog cannot go belly up as well.

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#125

Post by vacri »

rodgerd wrote: post #54
thasmin wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who aren't extremely familiar with how the Linux init system works and whose job doesn't include keeping the servers stable don't see why the neckbeards are up in arms about systemd, but there's good reason. Many peoples' jobs depends on making sure the servers are working, and knowing how the servers work is a big part of their job (and sanity). In its current incarnation, systemd changes the fundamentals of…

> People who aren't extremely familiar with how the Linux init system works and whose job doesn't include keeping the servers stable don't see why the neckbeards are up in arms about systemd Hi, I'm a sysadmin who's fed up with neckbeards (most of who apparently don't know much and refuse to learn) claiming to speak for all sysadmins on this topic. > large risk and little reward. It's four years old, and claiming "la…

The only sysadmin I know with an actual neckbeard (over a foot long) is a 20-year unix/linux admin, and he greatly favours systemd.

Perhaps if you're tired of neckbeards speaking for all sysadmins, you should return the favour and not declare what all neckbeards are saying. A lot of old, experienced admins are for systemd. It's not the young go-getters who are at the top level of distros making the foundational architectural decisions, after all.

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#126

Post by [deleted] »

AaronFriel wrote: post #80

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 fragment…

[deleted]

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#127

Post by nitrogen »

zanny wrote: post #31
thasmin wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who aren't extremely familiar with how the Linux init system works and whose job doesn't include keeping the servers stable don't see why the neckbeards are up in arms about systemd, but there's good reason. Many peoples' jobs depends on making sure the servers are working, and knowing how the servers work is a big part of their job (and sanity). In its current incarnation, systemd changes the fundamentals of…

I've had huge productivity gains with unit files for systemd over trying to write spaghetti shell code for old sysv. The syntax and features are well documented and writing them is extremely simple. I also don't believe any sysv implementation had crash recovery or socket activation of daemons, both of which are huge feature wins.

I also don't believe any sysv implementation had crash recovery or socket activation of daemons, both of which are huge feature wins.

That's because there were other components handling those tasks, like inetd and /etc/inittab. I do like having Upstart handle respawning for me, though.

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#128

Post by SwellJoe »

bcantrill wrote: post #93
SwellJoe wrote: post #84

The ignorance in this post runs deep . For example: Speaking of zones and Solaris, if that’s an option for you it’s probably the best of breed stack right now. Does the author have no idea what's going on with Solaris? Hint: Nothing. Nothing is going on with Solaris, because Oracle doesn't care about Solaris. They closed the source, and now push out the occasional minor update from on high for their enterprise custom…

He's actually suggesting SmartOS[1][2] and OmniOS[3], which are both illumos distros that are very much alive, having forked from OpenSolaris over four years ago.[4] [1] https://smartos.org/ [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8571961 [3] http://omnios.omniti.com/ [4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zRN7XLCRhc

That's probably a wrong choice, too, for most Linux users (though there are some reasons a reasonable, and technically competent, person might choose an Illumos system, if you're doing it because a random crank on the Internet tells you to, you probably don't know enough to understand those reasons and the quite large tradeoffs you'd be making).

Regardless, it's one example of many where the author exhibits a very poor grasp of...well, everything he talks about. Dunning-Kruger effect is funny that way.

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#129

Post by pjmlp »

api wrote: post #2

One thing I've realized about the Linux community through all this systemd flame warring is how unbelievably conservative a large subsection of it is. There's this huge so-called "neckbeard" continent that views anything architecturally beyond the 1980s as a huge affront to Unix. IMHO I kind of shrug at this, since Unix was never really all that great to begin with. Unix won because the only commercially viable and w…

> One thing I've realized about the Linux community through all this systemd flame warring is how unbelievably conservative a large subsection of it is. There's this huge so-called "neckbeard" continent that views anything architecturally beyond the 1980s as a huge affront to Unix.

Fully agree. It seems some people are quite happy with a few xterms in the X-Windows replicating a twm user experience, stuck in the past.

I would also add Oberon, Active Oberon, Singularity, Verve and the current unikernel/library OS research.

> OS I still feel is hiding behind the JVM

Android kind of got us there. Now with Java being compiled to native code, maybe other C++ layers might be replaced in future versions, given how Android team looks at the NDK.

All in all, I want the Xerox PARC and Douglas Engelbart's visions, not the AT&T one.

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#130

Post by nitrogen »

egil wrote: post #94
convivialdingo wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, here's the basic deal. If we're talking about common servers, common desktop, etc then systemd is an excellent replacement. It covers the base of users quite well. But lets say you are building a highly specialized application. You are going to be making quite a few customizations which are far more manageable through a shell scripting environment than by customizing a bunch of binaries. I assume that Redhat is…

The status quo for such projects is to use Busybox, and I reckon it will continue for projects where systemd etc is too much.

Systemd is too much, but often busybox is not enough. Plus if everything starts conforming to systemd, busybox will have to become like systemd to stay compatible.
Post reply on HN