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

131–140 of 464 posts

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#131

Post by gtirloni »

badgersandjam wrote: post #95
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…

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…

It hardly does anything for FreeBSD in the enterprise world. Companies cannot afford to support Windows Server, Linux AND another flavor of UNIX (FreeBSD). They are already dumping Solaris/AIX/HP-UX as much as they can so environments are a bit more homogeneous (and easier to support). There is no point in onboarding FreeBSD for what they perceive as minor technical differences (that, truth be told, are overshadowed by dozens of layers of bureaucracy and any efficiency benefit is completely lost).

It took a long time and a giant ecosystem to get where Linux is today at big enterprises. OSes are commodities in that space. They are not commodities in many other spaces though (e.g. startups, HPC, science, etc).

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#132

Post by nitrogen »

johnny22 wrote: post #27
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…

that's just speculation until you clarify. Can you be more specific?

Think of anything that isn't a web server, file server, database server, or desktop.

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#133

Post by the_mitsuhiko »

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...

And if syslog goes belly up no logs. What's your point?

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#134

Post by silon3 »

zobzu wrote: post #32
baldfat wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Linux and SystemD work and work good. Because the people who use it like it and we don't have many complaints besides logs are no longer text files we have to use journalctl. The strong critics usually go the route of "It remains to be seen if this is a good or bad thing." Systemd has been a replacement for the worst part of Linux, init. It was confusing and was just barely workable. It has been needing replacement f…

you dont have to use journald. you can send back from journald to syslog (eg rsyslog) and that works well/its easy to do. You can even disable the journald logging itself and just have rsyslog (or the logger of your choice). at my place we kept both journald and have rsyslog to redirect logs to the network. ie our /var/log is relatively empty (rsyslog isnt setup to log to disk) so we look at log on the machine via jo…

Using sane/standard logging should be the first thing an installer asks before installing systemd based OS. In fact, just make separate .isos for this.

(and I like systemd, at least in theory - and running Fedora 20).

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#135

Post by threeseed »

SwellJoe wrote: post #88
jodrellblank wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious logic you have. "It doesn't have a constant stream of fixes. That proves it's no good. Things that need fixing are better than things that don't need fixing".

Software maintenance matters. A lot. Particularly for networked systems. Also, it hasn't been Open Source in several years. That makes Solaris utterly irrelevant in my world. This blog post is suggesting Linux users move to Solaris. It's just a bizarre recommendation, made as an off-the-cuff assertion with no reasons given. Also, Oracle. What hacker chooses to be beholden to Oracle?

> What hacker chooses to be beholden to Oracle ?

How about almost every single Java, Scale, Clojure etc developer. We are all using Oracle's JVM and they have been unquestionably a fantastic steward of the Java platform. I know the company deserves a lot of criticism but remember it is a big company with many different departments.

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#136

Post by frozenport »

not_with_retard wrote: post #107
frozenport wrote: post #81

I used Gentoo for 10 years, and I can't figure out how to get a Systemd configuration working with XFCE. Indeed, most of the existing documentation has greatly slowed me down.

That's pretty sad, I was able to get it up-and-running on my first Gentoo installation. I guess time doesn't equate to knowledge, eh?

Haha, well its running but not quite right, if it saves me any face it worked out of the box in KDE!

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#137

Post by Shish2k »

davexunit wrote: post #19

I'm quite happy to be a part of the development team for GNU Guix, a distro that is not using systemd. I'm not a systemd hater, but it's definitely not for me and I'm not thrilled with the direction that development is going. It's a shame that sysvinit and friends are so bad that using systemd is the best option we have right now. Maybe GNU dmd will be able to stand up to it someday.

> I'm quite happy to be a part of the development team for GNU Guix, a distro that is not using systemd.

Thank you for doing this :) I love systemd myself, but I still think it's important to have alternatives available; also it makes me very happy to see somebody creating their own choice instead of tearing down other people's choices :D

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#138

Post by SwellJoe »

threeseed wrote: post #135
SwellJoe wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Software maintenance matters. A lot. Particularly for networked systems. Also, it hasn't been Open Source in several years. That makes Solaris utterly irrelevant in my world. This blog post is suggesting Linux users move to Solaris. It's just a bizarre recommendation, made as an off-the-cuff assertion with no reasons given. Also, Oracle. What hacker chooses to be beholden to Oracle?

> What hacker chooses to be beholden to Oracle ? How about almost every single Java, Scale, Clojure etc developer. We are all using Oracle's JVM and they have been unquestionably a fantastic steward of the Java platform. I know the company deserves a lot of criticism but remember it is a big company with many different departments.

Fair enough. I haven't followed Java in many years (long before the Oracle acquisition), so I don't have any point of reference. In my mind, and in my experience, Oracle make Microsoft seem like pretty nice guys.

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#139

Post by pgeorgi »

pnathan wrote: post #55
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…

No. Rebuilding the entire userspace set of services to be a systemd cluster is not nice. It's essentially redoing the traditional Linux approach, which has worked relatively well for years. There are a number of things that could be split out and made more modular - c.f., uselessd for a more in-depth analysis. To be clear, I'm not claiming that SysV init is The Best Way. Shell scripts are not the Happiest Place. But…

> It's essentially redoing the traditional Linux approach

It seems like that's part of their mission statement, given comments like this: "Some day, we will have turned the old crap into a real operating system. :)" -- Kay Sievers (https://plus.google.com/+TomGundersen/posts/eztZWbwmxM8)

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#140

Post by matthewmacleod »

badgersandjam wrote: post #123
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.

I completely agree – but critical thinking involves something along the lines of "here are the things that I think are wrong, this is why I think they're wrong, this is how I think they could be solved."

The answer "let's throw everything out" isn't that useful; likewise, dismissing the considered opinion of lots of people who have been doing this sort of thing for a while needs to be done with some rationality. An empty, bandwagon-jumping appeal like this adds little value and just helps spread more misinformation.

Post reply on HN