Busybox removes support for systemd • Hacker News Board

Re: Busybox removes support for systemd

#201

Post by JdeBP » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 12:54 PM UTC

digi_owl wrote: post #184

otterley wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the criteria by which you classify something as "opaque"? The documentation for systemd and its utilities is second to none.

Perhaps. Observed a lovely exchange a while back where a database was being publicly shamed for producing a poor unit file (i think they actually had the unit file launch a shell script that fired up the database). Their response given was that it was the only way for them to avoid tying their database to the systemd signaling lib. This was counted by one of the systemd devs claiming they could just use a socket that…

For those who want context and specifics: The whole argument from some of the people who didn't want to rely upon something that is explicitly described as "internal" is set out at length in places like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7809174 .

Re: Busybox removes support for systemd

#202

Post by bigbugbag » Tue, Nov 03, 2015, 1:25 PM UTC

digi_owl wrote: post #71

bigbugbag wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arch linux spawned a distro called manjaro which leads the way on not joining the systemd bandwagon. Debian got forked into devuan which is debian minus systemd. As systemd originated from redhat it is expected that the other faces of redhat namely fedora and centos would also feature systemd. Then there is slackware, gentoo, pclinuxos that either did not bit the systemd bullet or offer alternative option. Not sure a…

Err, Distrowatch claim that Manjaro use systemd...

please read archlinux systemd-free website[1].

[1]: http://systemd-free.org/

Re: Busybox removes support for systemd

#203

Post by skarnet » Sun, Nov 08, 2015, 3:34 AM UTC

davidstrauss wrote: post #196

skarnet wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, the people who use Busybox are probably aware of the problems - political as well as technical - with systemd, and most likely not using systemd in the first place because it's not exactly a good choice for embedded systems. Also, for busybox syslogd, it does not matter at all whether you can hold its socket. syslog isn't a reliable mechanism anyway, and busybox is light enough that the non-ready period is…

> it's not exactly a good choice for embedded systems. I don't develop embedded systems, but systemd is actually popular in that space because of its watchdog capabilities and its inclusion in projects like GenIVI and Tizen. More detail is in this post from an embedded systems developer here: http://www.phoronix.com/forums/forum/phoronix/latest-phoroni...

I see nothing there that can't be achieved by a simple supervision suite. s6, nosh, even runit provide those features; the extra complexity of systemd isn't needed at all. If even embedded developers are getting pulled in by the sirens of systemd because OH MY GOSH IT HAS WATCHDOG CAPABILITIES, then we definitely need to work more on raising awareness about supervision.