It seems like most systemd problems boil down to: shit this will take more than half an hour to understand, I'm a lazy admin and don't feel like learning something new.
Systemd redux: The end of Linux
211–220 of 464 posts
Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux
#212I've been saying some of these things since systemd came out and typically get downvoted into oblivion so here this article makes HN's front page.
His implication about switching to FreeBSD is a good one and I notice a decent influx of Linux admins switching to FreeBSD showing up on every forum I visit.
Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Everyone" has not switched nor is "everyone" switching. Most distros are yes. Some are not. Personally I like shell scripts and plan to continue using them as long as feasible. They work, and when/if they don't, I can usually find out why. "Strong consensus" might be good argument for some people. I personally find it a fallacious appeal to popularity.
Additionally,I would argue that distros are switching because of gnome, not because they like systemd so much.
I'd like to point out that logind can be used without systemd using systemd-shim. So you can use fully featured GNOME without systemd.
Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux
#214Wow. The UNIX-haters are out in force. Apparently proven, real-world tested code is no longer a relevant feature to a lot of people. Well, "Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly." But enough about the technical distractions. Why is systemd so important? It's certainly not technical quality or design (even if some of the ideas are useful, the implementation is junk). There is a far more…
Where do you get UNIX-haters? I read systemd haters which begets Linux haters but UNIX? No.
Besides, Linux is no longer a UNIX-like system. Linux is now only Linux unto itself with UNIX-similarities.
Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
That sounds like an excuse which I don't accept. I have a formal engineering background and whilst you're fundamentally right, engineering is based upon cumulative experience gained. We have a hell of a lot of experience as a society of writing software that works and is of merchantable quality. What the general state of affairs shows is the following traits: 1) There is no thought and research going into the design…
Wait, so let me get this straight. You're an engineer-engineer, not a system administrator or a software developer. And you think there is a fundamental problem of qualification in software development, yet you lack qualification in software development. On your points: #1 is patently false, to the point of being extremely insulting. You've lost all sympathy from me at this point. Go peddle your baseless opinions som…
If there is one thing that HN has taught me it's not to make broad, hyperbolic statements just because I don't like something; especially if it is a divisive issue. There is always a "moron4hire" who will rip you a new one (and rightly so).
Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux
#216Perhaps 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…
> 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. Or go back to using windows for general use and software development which is in fact what I've done. It's amazingly sad after many years of being a strong linux supported but this has killed linux for me. I see no point in continuing to use it.
That's really not a terrible idea actually. I switch back and forth a lot between the Windows and the Unixy ecosystems and by far the best end user experience, tailored[1] developer experience and (I'm going to get slated for this), mobile experience is on Windows by far.
[1] tailored as in platform specific. For cross platform stuff, it's not so good.
Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Upstart was tested enough to ship in RHEL6.
It does not mean it works perfectly and has no bugs.
But systemd IS NOT only an init system.
So if systemd 208 (until 213) by default saves the core files in the journal and your core file is bigger that what systemd devs decided was appropriate in a .c file (around 768MB, IIRC), you lose it. That is _inacceptable_.
And while we (=the company i work for) still have not officially started our evaluation of the platform, if RHEL7(.0) does not have this bug fixed then I will be strongly against supporting it officially, since in case of crash we would not be able to get or pass up to the devs the core file for analysis.
Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux
#218Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux
#219Wow. The UNIX-haters are out in force. Apparently proven, real-world tested code is no longer a relevant feature to a lot of people. Well, "Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly." But enough about the technical distractions. Why is systemd so important? It's certainly not technical quality or design (even if some of the ideas are useful, the implementation is junk). There is a far more…
Where do you get UNIX-haters? I read systemd haters which begets Linux haters but UNIX? No. Besides, Linux is no longer a UNIX-like system. Linux is now only Linux unto itself with UNIX-similarities.
Just look at this very thread - there are numerous posts trashing the "old ways" of UNIX.
It has been a common thread throughout the systemd mess. Lennart himself is very strongly outspoken against any use of shell scripting (not just in init).
Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. Syst…
Authentication is done with PAM and Kerberos these days - Kerberos is late 1980s, PAM came along in the 90s. Unix evolves and had continued to do so since its inception. udev certainly changed how we do devices. The rest of your comment is fear mongering which could be applied to any group of core devs on any OSS project in existence. After all who controls Debian and security defaults? Do YOU trust them?
You're missing the point: there was no networking (outside of UUCP and dial-up connnections) in 1978 Unix, so there were large classes of functionality since added which simply didn't exist.
What 1978 Unix did have was security and authentication. The OS was multi-user from the very beginning -- hence the pun in the name: uniplexing operating system (Dennis and Ken created a two-user OS to play Space Traveller).
As Bruce Perens recently discussed in a set of comments at LWN, the first thing he did as DPL of Debian was decentralize the management of Debian packaging. He recommends a very similar process for Systemd. The Systemd proponents in that discussion aren't particularly taken with the idea.
http://lwn.net/Articles/621022/
It's not a matter of fear mongering when the stated goals and practices of Systemd are to intentionally break compatibility with other Unixen, to reject compatibility patches, and to provide "choice" in the form of allowing users the option of any Linux distro on which they can run systemd:
http://imgur.com/r/linux/Is9vjRJ
As Jon Corbet noted at LWN in his Grumpy Editor post on the topic, it would greatly behoove systemd leadership and proponents to demonstrate a modicum of gracious victory.
As for Debian's governance, that process has been more than slightly troubled of late, with at least four key departures (Joey Hess, Ian Jackson, Russ Allbery, and Tollef Fog Heen), only in the past couple of weeks. The cabal question was raised by former DPL Bruce Perens in the LWN post linked above. And, frankly, no, I haven't been happy with the recent directions of Debian's Technical Committee of late. Joey Hess's resignation (as well as those of Ian and Russ) calls into question more than just the specific decisions, but the process as a whole.
Your attempts to smear my own comments which are based on actual events, facts, and highly considered views of those with deep and broad experience in the field is, I'm really sorry to say, far too typical of what I see from systemd proponents (the attacks on Perens in the LWN thread strike a pretty similar tenor).
Something is sick in this process. That more than anything is what's bothering me about it, though I've also grave doubts over the technical direction.