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

291–300 of 416 posts

Re: Linux From Scratch ends SysVinit support

#291

Post by krautburglar »

pjmlp wrote: post #177
nine_k wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Runit is 5474 SLOCs. Most source files are shorter than 100 lines. Works like a charm. Implements an init system; does not replace DNS, syslog, inetd, or anything else. Systemd, by construction, is a set of Unix-replacing daemons. An ideal embedded system setup is kernel, systemd, and the containers it runs (even without podman). This makes sense, especially given the Red Hat's line of business, but it has little rel…

I love how people worship UNIX design in Linux circles, especially when complaining about decisions where Linux is catching up with commercial UNIXes, as in the init systems replacements. UNIX design was so great that its authors did two other operating systems trying to make UNIX done right. One of the few times I agree with Rob Pike, > We really are using a 1970s era operating system well past its sell-by date. We…

Compared to plan9, past its sell-by date. Compared to redhat poetteringware, I will continue to attend services.

Re: Linux From Scratch ends SysVinit support

#292

Post by egorfine »

guerrilla wrote: post #283
egorfine wrote: post #212

Why not discontinue original coreutils and original sudo while we're at it?

I think you're joking but they will. Eventually stystemd will consume everything and that work has already begun, quite literally.

They absolutely will.

Even irony aside, there is no point in investing so much efforts in Rust slops without removal of the original tools.

Re: Linux From Scratch ends SysVinit support

#293

Post by sweetsummer »

jdub wrote: post #186
simoncion wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sure, and systemd would translate that directly into a dependency on network startup... You'd think so, but the Github Issue linked by GP shows that the machinery is unreliable: In practice, adding `_netdev` does not always force systemd to [consider the mount unit a network mount], in some instances even showing *both* local and remote ordering. ... This can ultimately result in dependency cycles during shutdown w…

It's so refreshing to discover that the "I found one bug in systemd which invalidates everything" pattern continues in the year of our lord 2026.

[dead]

Re: Linux From Scratch ends SysVinit support

#294

Post by krautburglar »

pjmlp wrote: post #223
fsflover wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is a book on that, gets posted every now and then on HN. In case you never read it, https://web.mit.edu/~simsong/www/ugh.pdf Hardly the piece of OS beauty that gets praised about FOSS circles.

But that book is a waste. It is just MIT dunning-krugerites who were salty that LISP machines never took off. When it comes to real life, the bell labs approach won, and for several good reasons. Not "worse is better" (another dunning-krugerite cope), but "less is more."

Re: Linux From Scratch ends SysVinit support

#295

Post by ryukoposting »

um1 wrote: post #141
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.

LFS seems to be for people who are interested in how things work. The systemd proponents come off as people who would question why you would want to to drive a manual transmission and say of course you should choose an automatic or better yet, a robot; self driving car. It would be interesting to see how those opinions line up with the uses of AI

I have owned many manual cars, but I'm fine with systemd on all my machines. Being a nerd about one thing doesn't require me to be a nerd about other things.

Re: Linux From Scratch ends SysVinit support

#296

Post by cf100clunk »

fragmede wrote: post #225
cf100clunk wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bear in mind that the entire purpose of systemd is to replace a huge amount of previous system administration solutions in a fashion that is centralized and automated, and not in need of as much human intervention as previous init systems. For copious examples, look through these comments and the huge number of previous HN threads on this huge topic. That is my answer.

If there are so many such instances, surely you must have one that comes readily to mind, then.

I can do gainsaying too: surely you didn't look through these comments and the huge number of previous HN threads on this huge topic. Do your own work.

Re: Linux From Scratch ends SysVinit support

#297

Post by prathamtharwani »

krautburglar wrote: post #294
pjmlp wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a book on that, gets posted every now and then on HN. In case you never read it, https://web.mit.edu/~simsong/www/ugh.pdf Hardly the piece of OS beauty that gets praised about FOSS circles.

But that book is a waste. It is just MIT dunning-krugerites who were salty that LISP machines never took off. When it comes to real life, the bell labs approach won, and for several good reasons. Not "worse is better" (another dunning-krugerite cope), but "less is more."

But your comment is a waste. It is just HN dunning-krugerites who were salty that the UNIX way never took off. When it comes to real life, the Poettering approach won, and for several good reasons.

Re: Linux From Scratch ends SysVinit support

#298

Post by ndiddy »

pjmlp wrote: post #195
nine_k wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A project which is intended to be a learning experience in building a Unix variant (in this case, Linux) is a kinda right place for sticking to the Unix philosophy and design, for illustrative purposes. Mr Pike has indeed constructed a better OS than Unix; too bad AT&T neither knew how to achieve viral popularity, nor why Free Software (as in GPL) is going to dominate the world. By about 1995, it was already too late…

Not as much as people in Linux community think, especially those that never used commercial UNIX offerings. GPL is on its way out, a good example is that all Linux competitors in the embedded space, including Linux Foundation's Zephyr, none of them has adopted GPL. GPL based software is now a minority, almost everything uses licenses that businesses rather reach for.

I find Zephyr to be a somewhat poor example. It's typically used on MMUless microcontrollers where the application is linked into the same binary as the OS. I'm sure you'll point out that it's not strictly necessary to use it in that manner, but that's how most people use it and that's how they expect it to work. Licensing it as GPL would mean that basically nobody would use it because it would require releasing your entire firmware source code, especially when there's other permissively licensed alternatives in that space like RTEMS, ThreadX, and FreeRTOS.

Re: Linux From Scratch ends SysVinit support

#299

Post by ChocolateGod »

nine_k wrote: post #78
cf100clunk wrote: post #2

This is a mindblower. To quote Bruce Dubbs: ''As a personal note, I do not like this decision. To me LFS is about learning how a system works. 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. Yes, systemd provides a lot of capabilities, but we will be losing some things I consider impor…

Runit is 5474 SLOCs. Most source files are shorter than 100 lines. Works like a charm. Implements an init system; does not replace DNS, syslog, inetd, or anything else. Systemd, by construction, is a set of Unix-replacing daemons. An ideal embedded system setup is kernel, systemd, and the containers it runs (even without podman). This makes sense, especially given the Red Hat's line of business, but it has little rel…

> Implements an init system; does not replace DNS, syslog, inetd, or anything else.

You're confusing systemd the init manager and systemd the project. systemd as an init system only "replaces" initd, syslog and udev.

All other components under the systemd project are optional and not required, nor is there any push to make them required.

Re: Linux From Scratch ends SysVinit support

#300

Post by palata »

ondra wrote: post #289
palata wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Linux is now effectively systemd/linux This is my issue with systemd. I wanted Linux because I wanted to have a choice. The philosophy was that users should have a choice. Systemd goes against that: it's taking over everything and more and more projects require systemd. Flatpak as well: if a project only supports flatpak, chances are that it won't be easy to package normally. So if I don't use Flatpak, I'm screwed.…

> Developers don't have to package their project for all distros Essentially nobody uses the sources we provide. Literally nobody packages them. A few people use our rpm and deb packages, but the vast majority uses a (slightly broken and outdated) docker image built by third party. You might not like it, and I certainly do not, but unfortunately containers seem to be the best alternative that just works, compared to…

> but unfortunately containers seem to be the best alternative that just works, compared to everything else.

I think it's actually the worst alternative that works. If it didn't work, people wouldn't do it. And the better alternatives require more effort.

I think it unfortunately goes with popularity: when programming becomes more accessible, the average quality of code gets worse. When Linux becomes more accessible, the average level of its users gets worse.

What made Linux desirable for me risks getting worse the more popular it gets. I went from Debian to Arch, to Gentoo, and eventually I may have to move to a *BSD. Because apparently what I want disappears when a system gets massively popular.

Post reply on HN