Is there a link where one can read about the rationale of why systemd was needed? Perhaps by the person who started off the initial project?
Systemd redux: The end of Linux
331–340 of 464 posts
Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux
#332Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with that specific advice (minimize the interaction with the base distro). I'm on a quest to isolate every major component of my user experience in containers (including things like browser etc.). But not because I have anything against Systemd. I love Systemd so far. It's hilarious that he's proposing CoreOS as an alternative, given that it's one of the most radical rethinks of a Linux distro out there.
For those with reading comprehension skills this isn't funny but rather a natural conclusion. The problem for you is that you're making assumptions about the author that you haven't verified. The problem here isn't change, or re-thinking linux. The problem is re-inventing the wheel, and doing it poorly. CoreOS uses systemd, but it's not a distribution in the classic sense -- rather it's a platform for containers. The…
Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux
#333Everything 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…
In this case, we have red hat, lennart, Kay, and freedesktop.org working together to force a LGPL RPC loophole to circumvent the GPL. Sounds like an appropriate term.
Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux
#334Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux
#335Earlier quoted context omitted.
You know this is funny, I remember reading comments EXACTLY like this about 3-4 years ago but with pulseaudio in place of systemd. Pulseaudio was Lennart's previous project. It broke everything in linux sound for a while, everybody moaned and hated it and said it was the worst thing since the crucifixion of Christ. Yet, name one problem you had with sound on linux in the past year? There are very few. Pulseaudio now…
Pulseaudio still has problems. Sound suddenly being muted, it using the wrong alsamixer settings, sound being garbled until you pass in arcance settings or change it back to Alsa. Granted, the error might be more in part of the rest of the ecosystem, though I doubt it. But it is sadly far from "just use pulseaudio and everything will work instantly". And if it works, there is no need to think that Alsa alone wouldn't…
Pulseaudio still won't detect the headphone jack on my old intel board, and Skype on my newer machines on Linux will routinely fuckup playback.
One also wonders how much of the PA cleanup was handled by people that weren't Lennart.
Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux
#336Earlier quoted context omitted.
Simple one PID files. Assume server with lots of processes. Service A starts writes PID to disk, lets say 123. lots of processes start and stop as it goes along and does its work. Service A crashes/stops working PID 123 gets reused by a new process SysAdmin comes and hits /etc/init.d/ServiceA restart shell script calls kill 123 which was a totally different process now not at all related to ServiceA. etc... Clean unm…
> Not starting a database before the filesystem with the database files is mounted. This was solved decades ago with numbered init symlinks: K20postgresql S20postgresql
Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux
#337Everything 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?
Nevertheless, Red Hat and Canonical and others continue to try to foster desktop linux, on the now-obvious misguided theory that (a) the desktop matters and (b) they can take share from windows and osx installations.
As a result, there's hundreds of terrible paid desktop programmers, and thousands of their users, who are dying every day because, e.g., the last several iterations of wireless networking scripts were written by morons, their graphics libraries are comically bad, etc., etc.
Into this charged mix of total incompetence and frustration comes a small group of mediocre coders with hubris, backing, and political nous. And what they are promising to the long-abused desktop users sounds amazing to them, like wizardly magic, and literally, and almost entirely, boils down to this: freedom from having to deal with the shitty wireless networking script system. No joke. That is the fundamental issue at play, and the driver behind "faster boot times", "socket activation", and all of the other marketing points. If that idiot who wrote the wireless provisioning scripts had been competent, this entire mess would never have happened.
So the desktop linux users and desktop linux developers, who again have been living in a tiny cage being pooped on every day by their own regrettable choices, reach for this solution with the religious fervor of a drowning victim. And since desktop linux developers tend to be the C team, they don't care about good architecture, they just want things to work for them and their very specific desktop linux use case, which objectively and axiomatically, again, has not worked for decades and will never work.
So they band together in unison, following the exciting, energetic, charismatic and opinionated lead developer. And obviously, Red Hat is delighted, because that's their employee, and maybe they get more market share. And they pack Debian with developers, because there's a ton of horrible little desktop linux apps that grant them votes, and shout down the opposition. And they set up an IRC channel, and they brigade every forum with the same nonsensical attacks on the very architecture that made it possible for the internet to happen in the first place. Including, obviously, this very thread.
In actuality, this group of users is vanishingly tiny compared with the linux installed base, which is mostly phones and servers, where the real action is, and which don't need this halfassed dbus nonsense or the accreting blob of carelessly rewritten known-good-daemons. The desktop linux people are chasing a dead target with a terrible design and religious fervor substituted for technical ability. It will be intriguing to watch it play out. FreeBSD is about to get a big positive jolt of people that know what 'good' is.
Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux
#338New to this entire brouhaha, but I'm concerned because my entire production stack runs on Linux. At some point devops is not going to be able to do things the old way. Is there a link where one can read about the rationale of why systemd was needed? Perhaps by the person who started off the initial project?
http://0pointer.net/blog/ - is his blog
are you seriously trying to tell me that someone is going to have to explain what a "container" is by comparing with chroots? :D how have you been running your production stack all these years if you didn't have an internet connection under your rock :)
Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux
#339Earlier 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…
As for testing--notice that when a lot of people here are reporting issues with systemd/pulseaudio, their reports are pretty much dismissed out of hand, or they're told "no, you've done something wrong".
For #2, a lot of times somebody with the right political position (say, Lennart at Redhat) or just the ability to shout louder and longer than anyone else will get something put in, regardless of technical advantage. Don't even try to claim otherwise.
Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux
#340Earlier 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…
You know this is funny, I remember reading comments EXACTLY like this about 3-4 years ago but with pulseaudio in place of systemd. Pulseaudio was Lennart's previous project. It broke everything in linux sound for a while, everybody moaned and hated it and said it was the worst thing since the crucifixion of Christ. Yet, name one problem you had with sound on linux in the past year? There are very few. Pulseaudio now…