Knoppix 8.6 abandons systemd
techrepublic.com
Knoppix 8.6 abandons systemd
1–10 of 191 posts
Re: Knoppix 8.6 abandons systemd
#2As a write once read many system, the abandonment of systemd isn't a big deal I suspect. You don't write to the system area and expect it to persist, and so making modifications to the init system basically isn't going to happen. The modularity doesn't really make as much of an impact then. So any backlash from unhappy users who can't install xyz with one click and have init work properly, not a big deal. Anyone who uses something more complex like an overlay system with it likely has more of an interest in the internals anyway, particularly given the nicheness and age of the distribution.
Re: Knoppix 8.6 abandons systemd
#3I see a lot of hate about systems and I used to loathe it too.
Then I took a course on systemd specifically and it opened my eyes, and now I'm quite fond about it.
Systemd actually does ONE thing and does it well: it manages the system. It's the missing layer between kernel space and user space. It has quirks and bugs like all software, but I think it works very well, all things considered.
To those who say that it's complex and does a lot of things: it's complex because it does a complex work.
Re: Knoppix 8.6 abandons systemd
#4I see a lot of hate about systems and I used to loathe it too. Then I took a course on systemd specifically and it opened my eyes, and now I'm quite fond about it. Systemd actually does ONE thing and does it well: it manages the system. It's the missing layer between kernel space and user space. It has quirks and bugs like all software, but I think it works very well, all things considered. To those who say that it's…
Regarding knoppix abandoning it... Meh.
Knoppix is a live system, so all of the things systemd was designed for don't apply. I guess it can make sense for their knoppix's use case.
Re: Knoppix 8.6 abandons systemd
#5I see a lot of hate about systems and I used to loathe it too. Then I took a course on systemd specifically and it opened my eyes, and now I'm quite fond about it. Systemd actually does ONE thing and does it well: it manages the system. It's the missing layer between kernel space and user space. It has quirks and bugs like all software, but I think it works very well, all things considered. To those who say that it's…
systemd is a perfectly fine init system.
The problem is that it comes bundled with a whole bunch of other tools for handling networks, cron, ntp, etc which really ought to be separate projects. By bundling them with the successful init system they're not exposed to the usual Darwinian selection processes that shake out the best free software.
Re: Knoppix 8.6 abandons systemd
#6I see a lot of hate about systems and I used to loathe it too. Then I took a course on systemd specifically and it opened my eyes, and now I'm quite fond about it. Systemd actually does ONE thing and does it well: it manages the system. It's the missing layer between kernel space and user space. It has quirks and bugs like all software, but I think it works very well, all things considered. To those who say that it's…
I concur with your characterisation of systemd as “doing one thing, and doing it well”. Those who seem to malign it most are those who are, for historical reasons, profoundly conversant with the myriad daemons, configurations, and init systems (generally) of “old UNIX/Linux”. They have a point and a genuine axe to grind, I’ll concede, but systemd is an enormous simplifier for those who are recent to the scene: learn systemd, and you’ve learnt how to manage (most) of your system at a very low level.
Re: Knoppix 8.6 abandons systemd
#7I see a lot of hate about systems and I used to loathe it too. Then I took a course on systemd specifically and it opened my eyes, and now I'm quite fond about it. Systemd actually does ONE thing and does it well: it manages the system. It's the missing layer between kernel space and user space. It has quirks and bugs like all software, but I think it works very well, all things considered. To those who say that it's…
Regarding knoppix abandoning it... Meh. Knoppix is a live system, so all of the things systemd was designed for don't apply. I guess it can make sense for their knoppix's use case.
Knoppix is very installable and usable as a main operating system.
Knoppix claim to fame is automatic configuration. If your Xorg or sound was giving you grief after a fresh install, you'd live boot Knoppix and copy the configuration files back to your installation.
From this p.o.v. it makes sense for Knoppix' use case, because, as stated by Klaus Knopper: "This bypasses systemd's interference with many system components and reduces the complexity of the overall system."
Re: Knoppix 8.6 abandons systemd
#8I did a small ask around the room in the office, no one heard about Knoppix. Good for them, I guess.
Re: Knoppix 8.6 abandons systemd
#9I see a lot of hate about systems and I used to loathe it too. Then I took a course on systemd specifically and it opened my eyes, and now I'm quite fond about it. Systemd actually does ONE thing and does it well: it manages the system. It's the missing layer between kernel space and user space. It has quirks and bugs like all software, but I think it works very well, all things considered. To those who say that it's…
I concur with your characterisation of systemd as “ doing one thing, and doing it well ”. Those who seem to malign it most are those who are, for historical reasons, profoundly conversant with the myriad daemons, configurations, and init systems (generally) of “old UNIX/Linux”. They have a point and a genuine axe to grind, I’ll concede, but systemd is an enormous simplifier for those who are recent to the scene: lear…
Systemd is Red Hat’s version of the old “embrace, extend, extinguish” playbook.
Re: Knoppix 8.6 abandons systemd
#10I see a lot of hate about systems and I used to loathe it too. Then I took a course on systemd specifically and it opened my eyes, and now I'm quite fond about it. Systemd actually does ONE thing and does it well: it manages the system. It's the missing layer between kernel space and user space. It has quirks and bugs like all software, but I think it works very well, all things considered. To those who say that it's…
I think you are missing the point: Something like systemd has a good reason to exist. But the devil is in the creating team. We've seen pulseaudio, a good system in theory, but an untrustworthy unstable system in practice. And if it wont work, it is so complicated and non-transparent that you need a specialist. Taking a step backward from Alsa is hard, and they managed to do it.
Now that same team is messing with system critical stuff. We know from the kernel command line debug debacle they rather see the world burn down than admit they did something wrong. They are again creating a super-complicated incomprehensible half- documented mess, that puts it tentacles everywhere. But the stakes are a lot higher.
I am not saying they are incompetent. At a low level, the code works. But at a high level, something is very wrong. Bugs can be fixed, but arrogant architecture astronauts not listening to their users, messing with core infrastructure, that's where systemd keeps failing.