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

141–150 of 464 posts

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#141

Post by Andys »

Sanddancer wrote: post #77
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.

Thanks. I don't think it changes my point - various attempts were made to implement this feature since Freebsd 6 - almost 9 years ago, for some reason these were incomplete or ignored.

FreeBSD 10 was released only this year. For reference, Heroku began in 2007, using resource limits with LXC... a whopping 7 years ago.

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#142

Post by dgdsgdsg »

for me it seems that most people complaining/crying out loud come from a system admin perspective.

For example the author of this blog article does not seem to have contribute a lot of code to any project and is more "just" an admin and not a dev.

for me it looks like they don't like new stuff love the linux world how they knew it and don't want things to get easier or even change.

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#143

Post by matthewmacleod »

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.

We are all using Oracle's JVM…hey have been unquestionably a fantastic steward of the Java platform

That is debatable. First off, we're not all using Oracle's JVM :) It's also not at all clear that Oracle has been "a fantastic steward of the Java platform." They don't appear to have totally wrecked it, but that's a low bar for "fantastic."

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#144

Post by icebraining »

jude- wrote: post #76
simoncion wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is a system running Linux + Wine no different than Windows, just because it implements the same Win32 API? Is FreeBSD the same as Linux, since they both implement POSIX?

There are many ways to implement the same APIs.

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#145

Post by bcantrill »

SwellJoe wrote: post #128
bcantrill wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 po…

You realize that you're just talking in ad hominem circles? You acknowledge that there are reasons that a "reasonable and technically competent person might choose an illumos system"; is it as least possible that someone advocating that choice might not be merely "a random crank on the Internet"? And given that this is potentially a reasonable choice, how does advocating it represent "a very poor grasp of [...] everything"? If there are specific technical arguments to make here, please make them; the repeated personal attack is unwarranted -- and unpersuasive.

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#146

Post by makomk »

pgeorgi wrote: post #139
pnathan wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 )

Yeah, and they seem to be using Windows as their model of what a "real operating system" looks like.

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#147

Post by johnny22 »

nitrogen wrote: post #116
fidotron wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Systemd is most problematic because of its own-everything monolithic nature, and the changing of kernel interfaces to match. The vast majority of Linux systems are not desktops, and probably not servers either. The kernel and the core utilities around it (like init) should be designed with multiple implementations and all machine types in mind. This means phones, set top boxes, TVs, routers, automation hardware, supe…

jolla uses systemd on their hardware right now. for tablets and phones

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#148

Post by dredmorbius »

XorNot wrote: post #113
wazoox wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly that. You know what's insanely great? When you watch this presentation video of 1978 at AT&T where Ken Thomson explains Unix and type some commands on his VT-52 and you think: all of this is still current knowledge, and all of his explanations still hold true. Just like celestial mechanics or Pythagorean theorems. We are heirs of this ancient wisdom and this is friggin good , this is culture .

And systemd is changing precisely none of that. Nothing about systemd removes the basic unix command line. Because he's most definitely not explaining the init system, which wouldn't have been the same from year to year then, or even similar decade to decade.

Systemd does touch numerous parts of Unix as it existed in 1978: logging, authentication, and devices come to mind. But much of what it's interacting with came along afterward: networking, far more services than existed at the time, a much more complex security scope, and more.

But that's still a good 25-30 years of work, experience, practices, and smoothing out the rough edges that will be shot down the drains.

Systemd also fundamentally changes the control locus of key features within Linux and how applications, the kernel, and OS as a whole are constructed and constrained. Putting all of that under the control of a small group with highly evident disdain for any "outside" concerns (in quotes as these are of the larger Linux community, and the concerns are most decidedly inside that group), contempt, and plays-poorly-with-others attitudes.

I'm not impressed.

Nor with your comment, FWIW.

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#149

Post by johnny22 »

silon3 wrote: post #134
zobzu wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

opensuse and debian both continue to log to their respective syslog implementations.

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#150

Post by devcpp »

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.

Linux developers are generally very smart people in my experience. It's consensus of many experienced and smart people that makes it significant.
Post reply on HN