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

Devuan – Debian Without Systemd

devuan.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 221 posts

Re: Devuan – Debian Without Systemd

#181

Post by direwolf20 »

embedding-shape wrote: post #148
LooseMarmoset wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything else has moved in that direction: * Literally every game console * Literally every smartphone * Microsoft, with their Win11 requirements, is moving there * John Deere (read on their own hardware attestation efforts to block DIY) * Car companies (require specialized tooling and software subscriptions to make certain repairs) * Anything that requires a signed bootloader and signed software updates * Snapdrag…

And Linux probably predates most/many of those things, yet remains open and without forced attestation. Why suddenly it's different today than all those years you reference?

Companies can make Linux variants that are tivoized, but it's not standardized. They have to put effort into it. Soon it'll just be systemctl --tivoize-me

Re: Devuan – Debian Without Systemd

#182

Post by direwolf20 »

blueflow wrote: post #40
embedding-shape wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many of us starting using Linux before systemd was a thing, and you get used to what you use, so when something new appears that are trying (well, in this case "tried and succeeded at") to replace a bunch of stuff, there is a natural push-back against it. I think systemd also took a relatively non-unixy approach, where it's a big stack to adopt, rather than individual programs that work together well. Typically, we p…

Initially i hated systemd for the change it bought and lennarts behavior, but today I'm wiser. Today i hate systemd for its bad debugability (edit unit & daemon-reload loops), the lockups that happen whenever there is a fifo in the wrong place, and the processes that systemd spawns with no apparent related unit and without means to mask them. And the difficult to disable suspends on machines that never had any busine…

Same here.

Re: Devuan – Debian Without Systemd

#183

Post by direwolf20 »

ErroneousBosh wrote: post #61
embedding-shape wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many of us starting using Linux before systemd was a thing, and you get used to what you use, so when something new appears that are trying (well, in this case "tried and succeeded at") to replace a bunch of stuff, there is a natural push-back against it. I think systemd also took a relatively non-unixy approach, where it's a big stack to adopt, rather than individual programs that work together well. Typically, we p…

I started using Unix before Linux was a thing, and BSD-style rc scripts were a pain in the arse. Then along came Linux with its sysvinit-style init scripts, which were a pain in the arse. Now here's systemd with yet another form of init scripts, which are a pain in the arse. Each time there's been an evolutionary shift in how we do things, and systemd works pretty well for the way we use desktop systems now. They're…

We should try runit. Too bad Debian relies on systemd...

Re: Devuan – Debian Without Systemd

#184

Post by direwolf20 »

bandrami wrote: post #161
t43562 wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Init scripts were horrible Here's a dinit service file for starting my bluetooth daemon: type = process command = /usr/lib/dinit/dbus-wait-for -s -f 4 -n org.bluez /usr/lib/bluetooth/bluetoothd smooth-recovery = true logfile = /var/log/dinit/bluetoothd.log depends-on = dbus depends-on = local.target before = login.target ready-notification = pipefd:4 This is about as complicated as it gets - ones I make myself might…

I still would love somebody to explain to me what's "dodgy" about a shell script that runs the commands you want run...

I think it's the brittleness. Tomorrow your ethernet adapter is enp4s1 instead of enp3s0 (because of systemd) so your rc script doesn't set up networking and you have to fix it.

Re: Devuan – Debian Without Systemd

#185

Post by direwolf20 »

JCattheATM wrote: post #104
dashzebra wrote: post #25

Honest question here: why do people hate systemd so much?

I don't hate it but I certainly wish to avoid it for as long as possible. I see no advantages over alternative modern init systems and a ton of disadvantages. I think it's bloated, even if you can disable much of it, I don't care for the binary log format, and I don't want to support something that is encouraging so much dependency and unnecessary inter-connectedness. Not to mention it doesn't have the best security…

What's your favorite init system?

Re: Devuan – Debian Without Systemd

#186

Post by direwolf20 »

remix2000 wrote: post #117
account42 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, one complaint (out of many) against SystemD is that it moves too much complexity into PID 0 which is a very special process on Linux that must not crash ever or the whole system goes down with it. The init system is one thing that SystemD insists on running under PID 0 even though it could be designed otherwise.

But PID 0 on Linux is the idle task…? Init is (usually) PID 1, PID 0 kinda just means that nothing is running on a given CPU (with caveats), also killing 0 has special meaning because well it's not a real process…

Nitpicking. Of course they meant PID 1.

Re: Devuan – Debian Without Systemd

#187

Post by direwolf20 »

teddyh wrote: post #127
remix2000 wrote: post #7

"Tricycle – Car Without Engine" Honestly though, the argument against systemd is that it moves too much stuff into init, but I don't think it does enough of that, it's still extremely conservative, like, SD-DBus should be using binder x-port IMO.

Systemd seemd to be moving away from D-Bus and adopting varlink instead.

Which is like, D-Bus from Temu, if Temu was systemd. Is there anything they haven't NIH'd?

Re: Devuan – Debian Without Systemd

#188

Post by direwolf20 »

bandrami wrote: post #157
IshKebab wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure but not reliable, robust, integrated. Fine for 80s mainframes... not so great for modern laptops.

What could be more robust than that? There's basically nothing to break

You could install new hardware. Or worse — uninstall hardware.

Although that breaks systemd as well due to renaming all of your network interfaces because one Lennart Pottering continues to insist that desktop motherboards all work a certain way despite the evidence directly in front of his eyes.

Re: Devuan – Debian Without Systemd

#189

Post by direwolf20 »

hoherd wrote: post #152
yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last time I checked, ChromeOS is a gentoo derivative that doesn't use systemd, so yes this but unironically.

Huh, TIL. > ChromeOS (sometimes styled as chromeOS and formerly styled as Chrome OS) is a proprietary operating system designed and developed by Google. It is derived from the open-source ChromiumOS operating system (which itself is derived from Gentoo Linux) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChromeOS

It sort of makes sense. Gentoo is basically automated Linux From Scratch — you can make anything. It's like Yocto/OpenEmbedded but for PCs. It even uses the same language.

Re: Devuan – Debian Without Systemd

#190

Post by direwolf20 »

ValdikSS wrote: post #64
Crontab wrote: post #42

I have to admit to still having some philosophical discomfort over SystemD as I feel that it encompasses too much functionality. That said, it does work and that is probably the most important thing.

Linux (the kernel) has LOTS of functionality anyone barely use or even know. Without that, there's no tooling around this functionality, no adoption. Not even all TCP socket options (setsockopt) are documented! Systemd pushed forward proper usage of capabilities, better watchdogs (in a broader sense, as systemd supports all kinds of them), isolation, policies, and so on and so forth. You need it all to efficiently co…

Because of SystemD, you can't use Linux control groups. On systemd systems, only systemd is allowed to touch control groups. I think they even tried to make the kernel enforce this but they failed, so now it just breaks systemd if you do.
Post reply on HN