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

Introducing stronger dependencies on systemd

blogs.gnome.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 179 posts

Re: Introducing stronger dependencies on systemd

#111

Post by jeroenhd »

msgodel wrote: post #56
sph wrote: post #40

I have yet to hear an argument against systemd which isn’t a variation of: - """bloat""" - I dislike Poettering. Remember pulseaudio? - a core user-space layer for modern applications that can’t only rely on the spartan kernel syscall API? Literally 1984. Given that systemd is good enough and is running on 99% of desktops and servers, I always find it hilarious to see how the vocal minority is overrepresented on this…

There aren't decent Pro systemd arguments other than "the Linux API confused me" and sysv init (which no one argues is good) was bad. Personally the last system I had systemd on corrupted my package database after killing apt that I was running in tmux. "Oh you can fix that with xyz systemd configuration." Here's my response: Kindly shove it up your ass and quit moving things around all the time just because you're b…

The pro part is the massive simplification and security advantages systemd brings to plain and simple config files. Sure, I can reimplement the containerisation API in OpenRC if I stack enough helper binaries and shell script libraries in there, but I don't want to. Kindly shove it up your ass and quit moving things around all the time just because you're board.

If it's good enough for most people, that means it's good enough to use as a basis for development. The same way no company develops mobile apps for Phosh or Plasma Mobile: the tiny fraction of people who have more esoteric preferences aren't worth rewriting the software stack for. Those who don't like the status quo can write their own wrappers and hacks if they want to use your software.

Re: Introducing stronger dependencies on systemd

#112

Post by jeroenhd »

cristodcgomez wrote: post #8

I just registered for comment here: they always refused to admit it (by "they" I mean Fedora/IBM) but we will end up having a Gnome OS for the general public... And I'm afraid the 3E rule is starting to be applied (Extended already, Embraced in all the "other OS" and now...)

Gnome maintains an OS for developers and such: https://os.gnome.org/

Red Hat Enterprise Linux is basically a Gnome OS already. So is Ubuntu. Though both come in KDE flavour and a bunch of others too.

I don't see what's wrong with Red Hat spending development time for "only" one single desktop environment.

Re: Introducing stronger dependencies on systemd

#113

Post by jeroenhd »

criticalfault wrote: post #15
hnlmorg wrote: post #5

What is Gnomes market share like these days? It used to be the de facto FOSS desktop in the GNOME 2.x days but things changed with the release of Gnome 3 and I’ve not really noticed Gnome ever bounce back since.

Every time there is an interview of some startup and they show the offices with a glimpse of a monitor, it's always Ubuntu. Running gnome. Also a few people I know, if they used Linux on a desktop it was Ubuntu. Don't know anyone using KDE, steam deck being the only exception. So from a personal perspective, if it's Linux on the desktop, it's gnome.

KDE is quite popular for personal computers I believe. It's got things like HDR support much earlier than Gnome did.

Corporate also seems to like OpenSUSE and RHEL. Universities seem to like Debian. Practically all of them default to Gnome or offer Gnome equivalently.

Even several (relatively) big SteamOS-alikes are using Gnome despite SteamOS itself defaulting to KDE.

Re: Introducing stronger dependencies on systemd

#114

Post by bmn__ »

happymellon wrote: post #99
bmn__ wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > doesn't matter […] your race […] Anybody's welcomed > I wouldn't touch this racist heap. You are clearly unhinged. I don't know how to bring you back to sanity, but as the americans say, one cannot reason someone out of a position they have not reasoned themselves into.

The developer is an anti-vaxxer, uses obvious misogynistic language and is full of dog whistles toward racist language. I am perfectly fine.

I notice you choose to shift the goalpost instead of engaging with the central point. The central point, stated clearly and unequivocally, is that the project maintainer wrote he welcomes anybody and does not care about race, and you call this racist, and thus there is a huge contradiction.

I suspect you double down because you are so captured by your emotions that you cannot possibly admit the lapse in critical thinking. I predict going that path won't take you far on HN.

Re: Introducing stronger dependencies on systemd

#115

Post by const_cast »

pona-a wrote: post #92
growse wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Replying to some sibling comments asking why anyone wouldn't want to use systemd. I get why some people don't want to use systemd. That's fine. I really don't understand why this group of people are so passionate about broadcasting this opinion to anyone within earshot. They don't like a piece of software, great! They've got different values! Use something else!

I think you're missing the point. This is a thread about GNOME, a major desktop environment, declaring systemd-userdb as a necessary requirement for its future version, asking the non-systemd community to provide an API-compatible implementation if they want to keep using GNOME. I personally do not use GNOME, nor am I running a non-systemd system at the moment. This is the first time I wrote a single word about syste…

Well GNOME is a bit of an oddball in the Linux userland world and everyone knows it. They have a "my way or the highway" type attitude to everything they do, and all the pros and cons that come with that. On one hand, they're able to achieve a development velocity and quality that a lot of other full-featured desktop environments cannot. On the other hand, users can perceive regressions in features and choice.

I think, if this is a surprise to anyone, they're not really paying attention. If you want GNOME you go along for the ride, and that's the message we've all gotten for the past 10 years. This same conversation keeps coming back up.

Just use KDE or something else if that's not an experience you, or other's, want. Personally, I despise GNOME, so problem solved for me. But, we have these conflicting takes where people will complain about fragmentation on Linux and then also complain about monocultures like GNOME. That's the experience GNOME very clearly wants to give, so if that's bad to you, then don't use it. And, on a distro level, maintainers can decide if they want to ship GNOME or if they want to make it the default.

Re: Introducing stronger dependencies on systemd

#116

Post by const_cast »

msgodel wrote: post #90
petepete wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless of what it's currently like, supporting fewer things is going to make it easier to maintain.

If Gnome cared about an easy to maintain codebase it would be radically different. Gnome's complexity is comparable to a large web browser (which is kind of insane considering how little it really does.)

To be completely fair to Gnome, they're doing some stuff that nobody else is doing. The idea of building an entire desktop off the backs of C and the gobject system is very novel and gives Gnome a lot of advantages. For example, it had binding for just about every language under the sun. Compare that to KDE and Qt, which is C++ or bust.

Obviously it's a bit hacky and kind of a mess, but it is technically interesting.

Re: Introducing stronger dependencies on systemd

#117

Post by esseph »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #100
esseph wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think that's wild you should hear about kernel vulnerabilities!

Yeah, the Linux monoculture is also bad. In fact, one reason the systemd monoculture is bad is because it enforces the Linux monoculture.

What about the Windows monoculture in business?

What about the seemingly Apple monoculture on HN?

What about the OpenBSD monoculture with OpenBSD!!!!!

You know what Linux needs? Another audio stack. Be sure it's backwards compatible with all the others, just like the last dozen were.

Re: Introducing stronger dependencies on systemd

#118

Post by abenga »

bmn__ wrote: post #114
happymellon wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The developer is an anti-vaxxer, uses obvious misogynistic language and is full of dog whistles toward racist language. I am perfectly fine.

I notice you choose to shift the goalpost instead of engaging with the central point. The central point, stated clearly and unequivocally, is that the project maintainer wrote he welcomes anybody and does not care about race, and you call this racist, and thus there is a huge contradiction. I suspect you double down because you are so captured by your emotions that you cannot possibly admit the lapse in critical thin…

> he welcomes anybody and does not care about race,

Ah yes, the "all lives matter" rebuttal.

Re: Introducing stronger dependencies on systemd

#119

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

growse wrote: post #103
gatlin wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> good tooling My completely oblique, binary logs disagree. It won because it solved problems companies with money needed solved. There is no indication that it succeeded on merit.

I'm interested in your idea that "merit" is some sort of objective measure. If it works for me but not for you, does it have more merit?

Some anecdotical evidence of mine. I tend to kill -9 Firefox or derivatives before system, or browser updates, to reliably get my tabs and cookies (for selected sites) back, without the need for any extensions.

Usually I'm doing that from within htop, or btop++. Under systemd that is slow, the process-tree of FF takes several seconds to vanish.

That felt very wrong. I increased the update frequency of htop and btop++ to 200ms (usually they poll/actualize/redraw at 2 seconds only) to investigate.

Then I retested that with Runit/S6(6) on the same systems.

Magic! The process-tree is instantly gone! And if you only SigHup it, it instantly reappears. BAM! BAM! BAM!

This applies to all sorts of process-trees also, not only FF.

Compared to that systemd feels like a sloth.

Yes, Yes, I did that under several different distros, initially AntiX, recently "init diversity edition"(Debian derivative optimized for 'live-booting', running from RAM, in all sorts of 'Frugal' installs), some Arch-derivatives, sometimes 'riced' to the max, and default Debian, just to be sure.

Over several years. Initially on a Core-i7 640LM with only 8GB RAM, more recently on Core-i5 7500t, and Core-i7 7700t with 32GB RAM.

Verdict: systematically slo(w)thified.

Re: Introducing stronger dependencies on systemd

#120

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

DoctorOW wrote: post #26
flohofwoe wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it is far more stable -still only compared to KDE Citation needed ;) I haven't seen any 'instability' in KDE since I switched from GNOME, and performance/snappiness of KDE is actually better.

Performance/stability on KDE used to be a lot worse IMO. Your opinion on KDE depends on when you last checked.

Does this matter as of now?
Post reply on HN