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

121–130 of 132 posts

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

#121

Post by digi_owl »

KirinDave wrote: post #56
bitwize wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Lennart has a lot of pull at Red Hat, and Red Hat has a lot of pull in the Linux community. The BSDs have really straightforward to maintain init scripts. Mainly because all the boilerplate junk is hidden in sourced-in files. Runit takes a more advanced approach, but its service files are still simple scripts a few lines long. We don't need a reinvent-the-world solution like systemd to address the most compla…

They're straightforward because they both do less and appeal to she'll scripting to get it done. I specifically want Turing completeness out of my configuration languages.

At the rate they are adding and modifying stuff, i am sure we can turn service files touring complete soon enough...

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

#122

Post by digi_owl »

mindcrime wrote: post #91
KirinDave wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Systemd is a whole group of small, factored tools that call to each other. This complaint gets trotted out a lot and I lump it in with the "It is differ…

Systemd is a whole group of small, factored tools that call to each other. So, I haven't tried the exercise myself, so maybe it's easier than I've been lead to believe; but I keep hearing that the problem is that those "small, factored tools" talk to each other and pretty much only each other and that it's very difficult to, eg, rip out and replace just one of them. The argument, as I understand it, is that SystemD i…

It is not just that they only talk to each other, but that the way they talk to each other is willfully undocumented and fluid, so that the devs can change things at their whim.

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

#123

Post by dijit »

pmoriarty wrote: post #78
happypants23 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you really want an init system that replaces a ton of functionality poorly like dns, ntp, syslog, xinetd, etc etc etc? SystemD is not just an "init" system. You have to look at the larger vision for it being a set of building blocks for Linux system and service management. I think this is a very good thing. Its about time that Linux had a unified and self-consistent approach to system management and configuratio…

"SystemD is not just an "init" system. You have to look at the larger vision for it being a set of building blocks for Linux system and service management." This was not the way it was sold. It was originally sold as an init replacement. If at the start the systemd guys had come out and said, "We aim to replace much of the core of Linux with some kind of Windows-Linux conglomoration: replace not only init but dns, sy…

You will likely have this argument again so I need to point out two things:

1) Debian does support sysvinit right now, although with some packages having hard dependencies on systemd it might not be long before you hit a brick wall.

2) systemd (the init) was used by Fedora for a long time before getting into RHEL/CentOS- which is of course before it got into Debian. So there were volunteers.

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

#124

Post by digi_owl »

gorkonsine wrote: post #116
LinuxBender wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of curiosity, who put him in that position?

The distros, collectively. Red Hat employs him and pushes systemd, and all the other distros (except a few weirdos like Slackware) follow along happily. It's a lot like GNOME, except there's a few somewhat-mainstream distros out there that have non-Gnome DEs at least.

So do happily, some do begrudgingly because they do not have the manpower to opt for alternatives.

I have taken to likening systemd the the lovecraftian shoggoth, because both are amorphic masses that changes shapes and sprout new "features" continually.

This means that unless you have the deep economic pockets to rival Red Hat, you basically have to follow along.

End result is that whatever comes out of Fedora sets the de-facto standard in the Linux ecosystem these days, for better or worse (imo, the latter).

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

#125

Post by digi_owl »

ilovecookiestoo wrote: post #59
kazinator wrote: post #38

Say I want to create an independent, 100% compatible implementation of systemd which can just drop-in to any systemd installation, no matter how it is configured and have it work? Where can I download the precise set of requirements for this, so that I don't have to peek at the systemd source code? What is systemd?

Say I want to create an independent, 100% compatible implementation of Linux which can just drop-in to any Linux installation, no matter how it is configured and have it work? Where can I download the precise set of requirements for this, so that I don't have to peek at the Linux source code? What is Linux? Really, this doesn't make sense.

How can people drop a comparison between a kernel and a supposed init and not stop and go "wait, what?!".

Having a would be second kernel metastasizing in userspace is no a good thing, full stop.

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

#126

Post by gorkonsine »

digi_owl wrote: post #124
gorkonsine wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The distros, collectively. Red Hat employs him and pushes systemd, and all the other distros (except a few weirdos like Slackware) follow along happily. It's a lot like GNOME, except there's a few somewhat-mainstream distros out there that have non-Gnome DEs at least.

So do happily, some do begrudgingly because they do not have the manpower to opt for alternatives. I have taken to likening systemd the the lovecraftian shoggoth, because both are amorphic masses that changes shapes and sprout new "features" continually. This means that unless you have the deep economic pockets to rival Red Hat, you basically have to follow along. End result is that whatever comes out of Fedora sets…

>So do happily, some do begrudgingly because they do not have the manpower to opt for alternatives.

Perhaps, but is it really that hard to just stay with the older init services (sysv, upstart)? Slackware still has sysv AFAIK.

Also, if they really wanted they could team up with other distros to share the workload.

As for Gnome, this simply isn't true: Linux Mint proved this by hosting not one, but two renegade DEs: Cinnamon and MATE. And KDE and Xfce are still around, and not hard for distros to adopt if they choose; they just don't, they'd prefer to jump on the Gnome3 bandwagon for some odd reason.

>This means that unless you have the deep economic pockets to rival Red Hat, you basically have to follow along.

Again, Slackware seems to disprove this. Perhaps also Gentoo. Neither of these are large distros.

>End result is that whatever comes out of Fedora sets the de-facto standard in the Linux ecosystem these days, for better or worse (imo, the latter).

The existence of all the Debian-derived distros, using apt, seems to partially disprove this, but I get your point and I agree about it being worse. I really wish the Linux ecosystem had perhaps 3 or 4 large players, but each roughly equal to each other, instead of there being one commercial behemoth with too much power. Unfortunately, while Debian seems to be holding its own somewhat, SUSE went down the tubes ages ago and hasn't done any kind of power-wielding or standard-setting, and Ubuntu has tried and failed and is turning into just a Debian respin.

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

#127

Post by jhkjhkjhu »

JdeBP wrote: post #111
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".

You are implying that Steve Litt is not very active in contributing to Devuan. On what data and metrics are you basing this?

Steve Litt uses Void Linux. He says so himself on the "Debian is not GNOME first" mailing list (aka the Devuan mailing list).

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

#128

Post by KirinDave »

falsedan wrote: post #118
KirinDave wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that’s just the phrase I’m familiar with that describes the style of listening that I recognsed in your replies. The word you're looking for is "non-sympathetic." I certainly am that. > This makes them equally bad and thus condemning Lennart more that Linux is unfair. Parsing this, you've subtly mistaken my position. I'll return your gesture in kind: The Free Software as a whole is wracked with a plague of toxic le…

> non-sympathetic I would use this to describe someone who clearly didn't care about the other person's point of view; you seem to be completely ignoring what they said and misrepresenting them to be arguing for a case you have prepared a counter-argument for. E.g. when I say "I had a bad day" to my boss & they reply "tough, deal with it", they're not listening sympathetically; when they reply "you would have an easi…

> I think your response is using my misunderstanding of your position to score points & promote your agenda, instead of clarifying what you said so I understand it better.

If you find my restating of my position—attempting to clarify it and put it in context—is "scoring points" then I only see 2 things:

1. Upon understanding it better you find my arguments more tailored to the argument and think this represents an unfair action.

2. You would rather I just agree with you rather than write honest responses. The idea that I have any standing TO disagree is evidence of "an agenda," an inappropriate thing to bring at all.

Not sure how a constructive conversation can continue, based on this.

I reject your premise. You reject mine. This conversation is only growing thornier and more tedious, and it's only out of respect to you that I have continued in good faith thus far. Perhaps this is where we agree to disagree and move on?

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

#129

Post by falsedan »

KirinDave wrote: post #128
falsedan wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> non-sympathetic I would use this to describe someone who clearly didn't care about the other person's point of view; you seem to be completely ignoring what they said and misrepresenting them to be arguing for a case you have prepared a counter-argument for. E.g. when I say "I had a bad day" to my boss & they reply "tough, deal with it", they're not listening sympathetically; when they reply "you would have an easi…

> I think your response is using my misunderstanding of your position to score points & promote your agenda, instead of clarifying what you said so I understand it better. If you find my restating of my position—attempting to clarify it and put it in context—is "scoring points" then I only see 2 things: 1. Upon understanding it better you find my arguments more tailored to the argument and think this represents an un…

Sure! I do think you are right about aggressive, anti-social behaviour in open-source project leaders.

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

#130

Post by [deleted] »

digi_owl wrote: post #125
ilovecookiestoo wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Say I want to create an independent, 100% compatible implementation of Linux which can just drop-in to any Linux installation, no matter how it is configured and have it work? Where can I download the precise set of requirements for this, so that I don't have to peek at the Linux source code? What is Linux? Really, this doesn't make sense.

How can people drop a comparison between a kernel and a supposed init and not stop and go "wait, what?!". Having a would be second kernel metastasizing in userspace is no a good thing, full stop.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN