Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Did It Take Devuan Two Years to Replace Systemd?

troubleshooters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 132 posts

Re: Why Did It Take Devuan Two Years to Replace Systemd?

#11

Post by KirinDave »

yebyen wrote: post #8
KirinDave wrote: post #2

I keep waiting for the reasoned, technical arguments against systemd instead of veiled metaphors, complaints about its creator, or protestations that it's different. The initd-inspired community has resisted the push for declarative and component-based core system infrastructure for so long, and it's causing very strange distortions to the linux ecosystem as solutions get sought for the problems it introduces. System…

I don't think that most people have a problem with systemd itself. Only some people. Usually it's a minor problem. But then you take it to the mailing list, and if it gets all the way to Lennart, he'll treat it like that's a "You" problem. I have not personally experienced this, but I've been in enough of these threads to realize that it's a big problem when, on a regular basis, you can't get these little problems so…

Either: Linus's behavior is fine and this is expected in the FSF community

OR

We burn all those MLs into the ground.

Terrible culture in these projects is basically how everyone is conditioned to interact from the top down. We can't pick and choose which assholes are okay and which are not. We either push back on all of them to make a more professional environment or we accept this is what we want.

Re: Why Did It Take Devuan Two Years to Replace Systemd?

#12

Post by KirinDave »

dredmorbius wrote: post #7
KirinDave wrote: post #2

I keep waiting for the reasoned, technical arguments against systemd instead of veiled metaphors, complaints about its creator, or protestations that it's different. The initd-inspired community has resisted the push for declarative and component-based core system infrastructure for so long, and it's causing very strange distortions to the linux ecosystem as solutions get sought for the problems it introduces. System…

You might have missed this: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/7/6/577 Ted Ts'o: https://plus.google.com/+TheodoreTso/posts/EJrEuxjR65J "For me a lot of "good taste" is about adding complexity when it's needed, and avoiding it when it's not needed. And if you do have complexity, making sure you have the tools so you can debug things when they break. And for me one of the things that I don't like about systemd is that it has…

I have 0 interest in any of their notions of "good taste." But thank you.

These are exactly the kinds of complaints I was saying I find less than compelling, because many of the same people who raise them then think the Linux project is okay to run like if UFC was also a papal state.

Re: Why Did It Take Devuan Two Years to Replace Systemd?

#13

Post by zlynx »

The linked page does not actually answer the question. Instead we get a long bicycle analogy that does not really map to systemd in any way that I can tell.

It would have been much more interesting to hear about what software had to be rewritten or replaced to support desktop environments like Gnome.

Re: Why Did It Take Devuan Two Years to Replace Systemd?

#14

Post by KirinDave »

pmoriarty wrote: post #9
KirinDave wrote: post #2

I keep waiting for the reasoned, technical arguments against systemd instead of veiled metaphors, complaints about its creator, or protestations that it's different. The initd-inspired community has resisted the push for declarative and component-based core system infrastructure for so long, and it's causing very strange distortions to the linux ecosystem as solutions get sought for the problems it introduces. System…

One of the main problems was the speed with which systemd was rolled out on all the major Linux distros, despite it being relatively immature and very controversial at that. The second major issue is it growing way out of the bounds of being just an init replacement, thereby violating the so-called Unix Philosophy of doing one-thing well. For a user app to do that is one thing, but for a core OS component to do that…

> One of the main problems was the speed with which systemd was rolled out on all the major Linux distros, despite it being relatively immature and very controversial at that.

I agree this is a big part of the problem, and appreciate it being raised.

> All of this adds up to a storm of controversy that the systemd people mostly brought upon themselves

I think Systemd comports itself as project exactly like most free software projects do, including Linux. Linus creates a template and then rages about how he doesn't like it.

Re: Why Did It Take Devuan Two Years to Replace Systemd?

#15

Post by gorkonsine »

wirrbel wrote: post #3

Sure, it might be because System D integrates so tightly with the whole ecosystem that it is hard to replace it. Or: Those folks who write rants about system d are not very active in contributing to a distribution that runs without it. With some discussions, you have that feeling that there are "those who talk, and those who do".

It's the latter. It didn't take anywhere near 2 full years to integrate systemd into Debian, so obviously there's a far smaller number of people in Devuan working to undo that.

The whole systemd shouting match has been dominated by anti-systemd people who are the extremely vocal majority, happy to blog incessantly about how "evil" systemd is, but apparently not that happy to contribute their time to an alternative that's more to their liking.

I'm not a systemd proponent (or detractor), as I'm not a professional sysadmin and just use Mint personally, but throughout that debacle it was fairly obvious which side was the more religious and less rational, and also less willing to put their money (or time) where their mouths were. Consequently, without doing any deep research on it myself, I tend to believe the systemd proponents far more.

Re: Why Did It Take Devuan Two Years to Replace Systemd?

#16

Post by bandrami »

KirinDave wrote: post #2

I keep waiting for the reasoned, technical arguments against systemd instead of veiled metaphors, complaints about its creator, or protestations that it's different. The initd-inspired community has resisted the push for declarative and component-based core system infrastructure for so long, and it's causing very strange distortions to the linux ecosystem as solutions get sought for the problems it introduces. System…

My reason may only be applicable to me, but: it requires a change in behavior on my part but solves no problem I face. That's really all there needs to be to it for me not to adopt it.

(Though, I'm also a huge proponent of declarative init systems; I like both shepherd and PIES)

Re: Why Did It Take Devuan Two Years to Replace Systemd?

#17

Post by aleksei »

wirrbel wrote: post #3

Sure, it might be because System D integrates so tightly with the whole ecosystem that it is hard to replace it. Or: Those folks who write rants about system d are not very active in contributing to a distribution that runs without it. With some discussions, you have that feeling that there are "those who talk, and those who do".

Well, people are allowed to have opinions even if they dont' have the time, resources, or know-how to contribute to a solution, so yes, there may very well be "those who talk, and those who do".

I don't see what your point is.

Re: Why Did It Take Devuan Two Years to Replace Systemd?

#19

Post by falsedan »

KirinDave wrote: post #11
yebyen wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that most people have a problem with systemd itself. Only some people. Usually it's a minor problem. But then you take it to the mailing list, and if it gets all the way to Lennart, he'll treat it like that's a "You" problem. I have not personally experienced this, but I've been in enough of these threads to realize that it's a big problem when, on a regular basis, you can't get these little problems so…

Either: Linus's behavior is fine and this is expected in the FSF community OR We burn all those MLs into the ground. Terrible culture in these projects is basically how everyone is conditioned to interact from the top down. We can't pick and choose which assholes are okay and which are not. We either push back on all of them to make a more professional environment or we accept this is what we want.

> We either push back on all of them to make a more professional environment or we accept this is what we want.

This is a false choice. We can choose our battles as we please.

Re: Why Did It Take Devuan Two Years to Replace Systemd?

#20

Post by mindcrime »

KirinDave wrote: post #2

I keep waiting for the reasoned, technical arguments against systemd instead of veiled metaphors, complaints about its creator, or protestations that it's different. The initd-inspired community has resisted the push for declarative and component-based core system infrastructure for so long, and it's causing very strange distortions to the linux ecosystem as solutions get sought for the problems it introduces. System…

I keep waiting for the reasoned, technical arguments against systemd instead of veiled metaphors, complaints about its creator, or protestations that it's different.

I think @pmoriarty here just nailed it. It's not necessarily that "SystemD sucks" or that it doesn't do what it proclaims to do. But the fact that it's so monolithic (in practice, if not in principle) and subsumes so much of the rest of the system, and introduces so much coupling, is a very real issue. That switching from SystemD to $SOMETHINGELSE is a huge undertaking is, in and of itself, a problem.

The "Unix Philosophy" of "do one thing and do it well" isn't just a tagline. That philosophy is cherished because it's been proven to be valuable. Replacing init with something that moves away from that is certainly worthy of questioning, if not outright criticism.

Now maybe it's the case that SystemD is really just plain "so much better" that it outweighs all of that. I honestly don't know. But I can understand why people raise these issues.

Post reply on HN