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

Linux From Scratch ends SysVinit support

lists.linuxfromscratch.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 416 posts

Re: Linux From Scratch ends SysVinit support

#201

Post by abenga »

bandrami wrote: post #164
rcxdude wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always dreaded trying to create a service with bash-based init scripts. Not only did it involve rolling a heck of a lot yourself (the thing you were running was generally expected to do the double-fork hack itself and otherwise do 'well behaved daemon' things), it varied significantly from distro to distro, and I was never confident I actually got it right (and indeed, I often saw cases where it had most definitely…

Is this really that hard to type? https://github.com/openbsd/src/blob/master/etc/rc.d/watchdog...

Probably not, but it looks a hell of a lot harder to understand than a unit file.

Re: Linux From Scratch ends SysVinit support

#202

Post by happymellon »

its_magic wrote: post #175
happymellon wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I will soon be releasing a distro that is free of systemd, wayland, dbus, and other troublesome software. What makes you decide that these are troublesome software's? Systemd is usually argued that it is monolithic and breaks the Unix paradigm. But then you are going for X over Wayland? X is a monolithic application that breaks the Unix paradigms. Are you just picking things because they are old, or is there a reas…

The difference is that the people who designed X11 were honest in their intentions. The authors of systemd, wayland, etc are not. I'll just leave it at that. (I recommend staying far away from "X11libre" also, for the same reason, with no further comment.) Monolithic stuff is OK too, where it makes sense. The kernel is monolithic. ZFS is monolithic. (Yes, this system has ZFS support. The module is built in to the ker…

> The difference is that the people who designed X11 were honest in their intentions. The authors of systemd, wayland, etc are not. I'll just leave it at that.

Leave it at what? How is Wayland not honest about it's intentions? It is completely transparent about the motivation behind the project. Whether you agree with the motivations is different, and thats fine to disagree with a project.

However there hasn't been a scenario where Wayland haven't been honest.

Yes, I am ignoring your side comments about systemd because I was asking about Wayland, and mixing the two together implies that you are just complaining about the new, rather than technical/architectural reasons.

(Plus I have to ask as "killthe.net" doesn't come up with anything)

Re: Linux From Scratch ends SysVinit support

#203

Post by idoubtit »

jupake wrote: post #193

Modern mechanical engineers, to this day, learn the thermodynamics of steam engines. Not because they are living in the past, but because they are building foundation knowledge that will permeate everything they'll be doing in the future. LFS should stick to academic pedagogy, instead of trying to compete in the Linux Distro space.

The world is vast, and I doubt that every mechanical engineer has studied steam engines, and that it makes a difference in the end.

Most modern programmers don't learn COBOL60 or Commodore BASIC. Modern mathematician very rarely study writings of Euler or Gauss; even 50 years old math books may be hard to grasp for modern students.

I agree that using a simpler tool for educational purpose is useful, but since SysVinit is obsoleted almost everywhere, it made sense to drop it. LFS could have chosen a simpler init than the domain standard, like runit or s6-init.

Re: Linux From Scratch ends SysVinit support

#204

Post by dark-star »

cf100clunk wrote: post #22
eikenberry wrote: post #17

SysV init was the overengineered cousin to BSD init and I never liked it. Easily my least favorite of all init systems I've worked with over the last 30 years. On the flip side, daemontools or maybe runit were my favorites. Lots of good options for init/supervision tooling over the years and SysV was not among them.

If we look on LFS for its academic merit, I'm saddened that key historical elements of Unix/Linux design are being left behind, much like closing down a wing of a laboratory or museum and telling students that they'll need to whip up their own material to fill in those gaps.

The old versions of LFS are still available to satisfy your curiosity.

Someone should probably save the required source package versions (and patches) before they disappear though

Re: Linux From Scratch ends SysVinit support

#205

Post by tuetuopay »

greatgib wrote: post #105

The proof in the end that SystemD is a cancer in the Linux ecosystem. Officially it is just a stack and you can decide to use another one if you don't like it. Unofficially RedHat money ensured that other critical stacks will depend heavily on it so that you can't easily swap without replacing the whole ecosystem.

Where did you get that sweet RedHat money? I feel like I'm missing out, I'm happily using systemd, where are my RedHatBucks!

Seriously, I would not ever go back to a house of cards of bash and shell scripts of an init system. systemd solves actual problems and gets shit done, with a level of consistency that cannot be achieved by LEGO-like wet-dreams of UNIX worshippers. My favorite example is systemd-resolve and systemd-network that actually communicate together to indicate which DNS server is available on which network interface and with which search domains, to gasp do proper DNS routing.

Am I happy with all of systemd? Not always, it has a tendency to break networking after an upgrade with reexec. I'm still not convinced about homed. But oh my, you don't have to look further than actually solving problems to explain its success.

Re: Linux From Scratch ends SysVinit support

#206

Post by d3Xt3r »

jvreeland wrote: post #161
greatgib wrote: post #105

The proof in the end that SystemD is a cancer in the Linux ecosystem. Officially it is just a stack and you can decide to use another one if you don't like it. Unofficially RedHat money ensured that other critical stacks will depend heavily on it so that you can't easily swap without replacing the whole ecosystem.

systemd not SystemD idk why people got that in their head.

Because the name is a play on the French term Système D: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_D

Re: Linux From Scratch ends SysVinit support

#207

Post by tuetuopay »

JCattheATM wrote: post #21

> Understanding the boot process is a big part of that. systemd is about 1678 "C" files plus many data files. System V is "22" C files plus about 50 short bash scripts and data files. Systemd is basically the Windowsfication of Linux. I'm always surprised by the people that champion it who also used to shit on Windows with the registry or whatever. Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a thing.

Pedantic but systemd is inspired by MacOS launchd, not by Windows services. It has nothing akin to the registry, which even microsoft admits is a pain on windows.

Oh, and usually people shit on windows for many reasons, but some of the very core features of the OS are robust and the Linux crowd could take a hint. Like, you know, the notion of service at the OS-level and not some random bash script that nohup'd a binary. Oh wait, that's what does Windows, MacOS and Linux with systemd.

Re: Linux From Scratch ends SysVinit support

#208

Post by fsflover »

pjmlp wrote: post #187
rusk wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We really are using a 1970s era 1970 Anno Domini no less

Making it even more so of a religion. UNIX is only an OS with some good ideas, and also plenty of bad ones. No reason to stick with it ad eternum as some kind of holy scriptures.

You are so vague in your attack on Unix approach that it's borderline trolling. What are your problems with it? Modularity and minimalism have been working perfectly and that systemd does not follow them is a bad thing.

Re: Linux From Scratch ends SysVinit support

#209

Post by bandrami »

abenga wrote: post #201
bandrami wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this really that hard to type? https://github.com/openbsd/src/blob/master/etc/rc.d/watchdog...

Probably not, but it looks a hell of a lot harder to understand than a unit file.

Huh? Not even remotely

Re: Linux From Scratch ends SysVinit support

#210

Post by [deleted] »

kevstev wrote: post #127
nomel wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "ok install systemd..." and now... it just goes. I believe it's `systemctl list-unit-files` to see all the config that's executed, included by the distro, and then if you want to see the whole hierarchy `systemd-analyze dot | dot -Tpng -o stuff.png` To me, seems much easier to understand what's actually going on, and one of the benefits of config as data rather than config as scripts.

Yeah- but LFS didn't really expose you to that or really teach you much about Systemd internals. Here is the page on it: https://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/view/systemd/chapter09/... The only other page that covers it is how to compile it and it install it (make configure, make, make install essentially- with a bunch of flags). It kind of touches upon a few commands that will let you know what its doing and how to…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN