21–30 of 193 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What are the other choices? Upstart was awful, and init is a hundred years old.
launchd, solaris smf, etc. There were tons of choices that were thrown away for silly reasons.
It seems like it is quite fashionable to hate on systemd, and it seems like systemd is kindof a piece of crap - in some ways. However, linux is missing basic functionality other os's offer, and systemd is showing up and trying to fill in those blanks. This is open source, if you don't like systemd, if you think it's crap, if you think there are obviously better ways to do it, well, what are you waiting for then? Syst…
I hold no animus towards the systemd project's goals or aspirations, but I have yet to hear a compelling reason for systemd to be shipping in it's current state.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Unix philosophy: Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Systemd doesn't observe the Unix philosophy and that bothers many people.
It's baffling to see people insist that that's the UNIX philosophy when the UNIX philosophy has always been about monolithic kernels over microkernels, so "do one thing" is out the window, and about worse-is-better over do-the-right-thing ( https://www.dreamsongs.com/RiseOfWorseIsBetter.html ), so "do it well" is out the window. And the userspace tools don't follow this either. Quoting http://prog21.dadgum.com/139.ht…
> "Systemd is defective by design." The most succinct explanation of Systemd possible.
I've complained a few times that systemd haters havent explained the hate. having read this post I'd say a slightly less succinct but infinitely more informative version would be > "Systemd is defective by design because they totally disregard the fail-safe by design rules"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Alternatives have been implemented before: http://cr.yp.to/daemontools.html http://smarden.org/runit/ The more you look at any of DJB's software, the more of the future you'll see.
you forgot http://skarnet.org/software/s6/
It seems like it is quite fashionable to hate on systemd, and it seems like systemd is kindof a piece of crap - in some ways. However, linux is missing basic functionality other os's offer, and systemd is showing up and trying to fill in those blanks. This is open source, if you don't like systemd, if you think it's crap, if you think there are obviously better ways to do it, well, what are you waiting for then? Syst…
I've been thinking for a bit that it's reasonably easy to write a PID 1 that reaps children and sends siginfo_t structs over a pipe to PID 2, which can be an init system as monolithic as you want. Of course, it would also be simple for the kernel to allow PID 1 to die/crash, and just restart it instead of panicking. I don't know why the kernel continues to treat PID 1 so specially—if the ewontfix.com PID 1 is suffici…
By design all processes inherit from PID 1 (directly or indirectly), so you always have an unbroken tree from every process back to PID 1. PID1 aka init is supposed to do bookkeeping (e.g. zombie processing), and if PID1 crashes the bookkeeping records are lost.
Because of this, it is better to fail hard, instead of allowing for corrupted process trees or similar.
Also, ps, top and basically every program that works with processes expects one root process for the tree. Breaking this would basically break compatibility with every existing userland (which the kernel cares the most about!)
It seems like it is quite fashionable to hate on systemd, and it seems like systemd is kindof a piece of crap - in some ways. However, linux is missing basic functionality other os's offer, and systemd is showing up and trying to fill in those blanks. This is open source, if you don't like systemd, if you think it's crap, if you think there are obviously better ways to do it, well, what are you waiting for then? Syst…
> "Systemd is winning because they showed up and basically nobody else did" I can't see how you would qualify this statement, which is utterly false. Specifically, systemd adoption was the result of political pressure by LP (the author), who works at Red Hat. There are plenty of other choices out there. The idea that systemd won because of some kind of meritocracy is wrong. It was mostly political with some technical…
Upstart was almost good, but its really frustrating to use. OpenRC is decent, but confusing.
systemd solved problems, not only that it solved them well.
The scope creep of systemd is something that is a bit alarming, however even with the creep it's doing a good job. The tools that it is building work fairly well, and its a relatively new project.
This is an excellent writeup explaining without hysterics why systemd is terrible software. Unfortunately, I expect that this post will be brigaded by systemd-apologists anyways, denying newcomers to the debate the opportunity to hear the facts...
I'm not sure how this comment is helpful to the discussion. As far as I can tell, you'd rather only hear the facts that fit your opinion of systemd as terrible software. I think the obvious right answer is that both sides present only facts and let newcomers decide based on that.