Why systemd?
blog.jorgenschaefer.de
Why systemd?
1–10 of 263 posts
Re: Why systemd?
#2[deleted]
Re: Why systemd?
#3We often criticise systemd for being too bloated, and making it hard to write a drop in replacement. I totally agree with this line of thought.
However, in my mind it has made several awesome things possible. My boot time got dramatically shorter when I adopted it thanks to parallelization. Besides, daemons have now simple and robust service definitions. Sys V had become a mess!
Lastly, lightweight containers are the real-deal for small development tasks (not for production!). Just one command: systemd-nspawn, and you're ready to go. Docker is currently a bit more complicated to set up.
Arguably, many features, including containers, should be moved out of systemd. Right now, more than a monolithic architecture, I think systemd is rather shipping too many things under the same project umbrella.
Re: Why systemd?
#4The reason people use UNIX-like systems is because they work reliably. In order to make a complex system work reliably, it needs to be easily fixed. In order to fix a system, a person needs to understand it as well as be able to make a change in it. And in order to understand a system, it helps very much if that system is straightforward and lucidly verbose.
I hope systemd will live or die on its merits; I fear that it will take over via politicking.
Re: Why systemd?
#5Am I the only one who's disgusted with this bloated, convoluted, dbus-dependent pile of crap? I mean, c'mon, binary log files? I'll pass, thanks. It replaces way more than it needed to.
I prefer the BSD-style philosophy, nice, simple rc.conf, used to run Arch till it got infected with this garbage too. It slowly progressed away from it's BSD-style roots. So recently, I just gave up and moved to FreeBSD. Not a single regret so far.
Re: Why systemd?
#6Lots of people do not seem to understand the criticism of systemd.
systemd = init system + a whole lot of other things.
When people complain about systemd,they usually do not complain about what it does or how it does it in the init system part.That part is pretty solid as far as functionality is concerned.
When people complain about systemd,they usually complain about the "whole lot of other things" part.Lots of people have different complains and my biggest one is on udev.
udev is a core component in any modern linux system I see systemd absorbing it as nothing but a political move and a power grab.They could have left udev as an independent project and just create a dependency on it.
The "whole lot of other things part" will,by definition,make any other project that is just an init system seem very much deficient in functionality when compared to systemd.
Re: Why systemd?
#7Lots of people do not seem to understand the criticism of systemd. systemd = init system + a whole lot of other things. When people complain about systemd,they usually do not complain about what it does or how it does it in the init system part.That part is pretty solid as far as functionality is concerned. When people complain about systemd,they usually complain about the "whole lot of other things" part.Lots of peo…
> udev is a core component in any modern linux system I see systemd absorbing it as nothing but a political move and a power grab.
I think this is a bit of a stretch. It's not like they did a hostile take over of udev. The maintainers also thought systemd was the right place for that code to live.
As for bloat, there certainly have been some new features, but so much of the systemd code (from what I can tell) was existing code that now lives in one place. That means it's free to consolidate the utility code it uses (every project has helpers for what (g)libc does not provide). In the grand scheme of things, less duplicated code is a good thing.
Re: Why systemd?
#8The reason people use UNIX-like systems is because they work reliably. In order to make a complex system work reliably, it needs to be easily fixed. In order to fix a system, a person needs to understand it as well as be able to make a change in it. And in order to understand a system, it helps very much if that system is straightforward and lucidly verbose. I hope systemd will live or die on its merits; I fear that…
> In order to fix a system, a person needs to understand it as well as be able to make a change in it.
So if I follow you, it would be easier to grok the whole system if all the code was in different places?
Re: Why systemd?
#9The reason people use UNIX-like systems is because they work reliably. In order to make a complex system work reliably, it needs to be easily fixed. In order to fix a system, a person needs to understand it as well as be able to make a change in it. And in order to understand a system, it helps very much if that system is straightforward and lucidly verbose. I hope systemd will live or die on its merits; I fear that…
It is interesting looking at how differing linux distributions approach this problem as well as things like connection management. Many do seem to be moving towards things like systemd. Angstrom Linux for the BeagleBone even bundled something called connman for managing network connections. Attempting to navigate the path of systemd plus connman to get networking to work the way I wanted was a pain. Some of the more interesting "solutions" when searching about recommended essentially wedging sys5 type init scripts into the systemd framework.
I wised up and moved over to using the Debian distribution in this case. Less moving parts trying to make things work the way they thought they should.
Re: Why systemd?
#10The reason people use UNIX-like systems is because they work reliably. In order to make a complex system work reliably, it needs to be easily fixed. In order to fix a system, a person needs to understand it as well as be able to make a change in it. And in order to understand a system, it helps very much if that system is straightforward and lucidly verbose. I hope systemd will live or die on its merits; I fear that…
It already has taken over despite being mediocre at best.
Mostly I feel that it got an undue jumpstart thanks to RedHat trying too hard to be bleeding edge, and Upstart/OpenRC not having as high-profile a backer.