121–130 of 204 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would anyone care to explain to someone who isn't 1337 in the inner workings of Linux, why systemd makes modern Linux not very UNIXY anymore and why everyone seems to hate it to death?
Linux via Unix: Do one thing, and do it well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy Systemd: Not that. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29670980 for an example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
genuine question: what's so bad about homed to jump ship? can't you just disable it and not look back?
What do you mean "jump ship"? There are plenty of Linux distributions that still let you choose. Genuine question though: why didn't Lennart and his gang just fork some Linux distribution for their ideas? Why invade everywhere else instead? Anybody ask them that?
At this point any system that is running this should not be called "UNIX derived" or "UNIX like" as systemd has subsumed all of the pre-existing architecture around system startup and management. Not arguing if that is a good or bad thing just saying we should stop putting systemd managed systems in the 'UNIX' column just like we don't put Windows NT systems in the UNIX column.
Would anyone care to explain to someone who isn't 1337 in the inner workings of Linux, why systemd makes modern Linux not very UNIXY anymore and why everyone seems to hate it to death?
Yes, some things was improved but it could be done in sane way - making things by design replecable, as it was always in UNIX way. But systemd is intentionally self absorbing, more - looks like it is intentionally layer above Linux. Now what we can do when one day Pottering or anyone from that IBM/Intel/MS cabal will merge Linux kernel uncompatible change ? And make Windows kernel "working flawless" - for some time of course. And with build in tracing. Or login right licensing ? :) That can be easily done today. And what plain users will tell ? "Works for me, what you talking about ??" Remember, some idiots already tried to sell plant seeds that you needed to re-buy every year. Business unchecked becoming evil.
Btw. about that "boot fast" :> Now it is dropped, of course. Also making system gooing down almoust instant is broken for years now.
My prediction is that in some time facepalm will be most common reaction when someone hears "systemD".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And let me ask a question, if systemd is crap, why does every major distro use it? If it was truly crap then surely the distro builders would use the alternative? Because it's tightly coupled to everything (particularly to the few profitable parts of linux - most open-source is maintained on a shoestring, so it's pretty cheap to take control over development of even vital low-level infrastructure). This is how syst…
> But it's toxic for the long term, because it undermines the whole point of using linux if you can't swap out pieces or maintain your own forks of individual components. You can, though? And many distros do by default. Don’t like systemd-boot? You can replace it with grub. Don’t like systemd-networkd? You can replace it with networkctl. Want to use it but prefer to handle Wireguard tunnels with wg-quick? Fine! Don’t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are some cool features in systemd that are not easy to do in cron. Example: I use restic backup. One timer runs every 24h or on the next boot if there where more than 24h since the last backup as this is a laptop. Also it waits some random amount so that not all script run at the same time after boot. If a backup fails (eg remote server down) it retires every 15min, but no more than one hour before I get an Mai…
Redhat made the scripting for you. I don't think it's that complicated of a script (although it would be easier with a retry command) sleep $random for i in 1 2 3 4; do backup && exit 0 sleep 15m done logger "backup failed" exit 1 add script to @startup in crontab or whatever they use. You can use another wrapper that only execute it if the backup is newer than now-24h. Backup could even be remote and you could track…
These corner cases take exponentially more time to get right than the first 80%.
"Someone could have packaged utility wrapper scripts in much less time than it did to add those features to systemd"
But nobody has, and I am exhausted to hear how easy it is without systemd without offering a non-hypothetical solution. You don't like systemd, then do not use it and move on. There are distributions without it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But it's toxic for the long term, because it undermines the whole point of using linux if you can't swap out pieces or maintain your own forks of individual components. You can, though? And many distros do by default. Don’t like systemd-boot? You can replace it with grub. Don’t like systemd-networkd? You can replace it with networkctl. Want to use it but prefer to handle Wireguard tunnels with wg-quick? Fine! Don’t…
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Hard_dependencies_on_systemd
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Basically, systemd is a big binary that manages the system. That used to be many discrete programs and shell scripts and files. There is a lot of philosophy to consider from there.
On my laptop, systemd consists of 60 different small binaries. Looks pretty UNIXy to me (maybe even too much so).
I really should have expanded on that post, and at a minimum removed "discrete programs" from it, the distinction being the behavior in shell scripts and such and sequential behavior at boot time.
At this point any system that is running this should not be called "UNIX derived" or "UNIX like" as systemd has subsumed all of the pre-existing architecture around system startup and management. Not arguing if that is a good or bad thing just saying we should stop putting systemd managed systems in the 'UNIX' column just like we don't put Windows NT systems in the UNIX column.
I don’t follow how a new startup/system management architecture makes it “not UNIX”. We do put OS X in the UNIX column, after all. POSIX and all that.
Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface.
AFAIK none of these describes systemd.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t follow how a new startup/system management architecture makes it “not UNIX”. We do put OS X in the UNIX column, after all. POSIX and all that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface. AFAIK none of these describes systemd.
Here’s a thought I haven’t evaluated fully: can the same thing be said about the Linux kernel?
At the end of the day I think some of the major points of criticisms of systemd (moving fast and breaking things for example) are valid, however I still see it as a net gain. Fortunately there are distros like Devuan, OpenWRT and Alpine for those who want something different.
At this point any system that is running this should not be called "UNIX derived" or "UNIX like" as systemd has subsumed all of the pre-existing architecture around system startup and management. Not arguing if that is a good or bad thing just saying we should stop putting systemd managed systems in the 'UNIX' column just like we don't put Windows NT systems in the UNIX column.
Well the name System D implies a manifest destiny to conquer System V (i.e. UNIX) because D=500 and V=5 in Roman numerals. Why else would they choose the name? Also you should call it GNU/Systemd.