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

Why Did It Take Devuan Two Years to Replace Systemd?

troubleshooters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 132 posts

Re: Why Did It Take Devuan Two Years to Replace Systemd?

#31

Post by LinuxBender »

gorkonsine wrote: post #26
dredmorbius wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might have missed this: https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/7/6/577 Ted Ts'o: https://plus.google.com/+TheodoreTso/posts/EJrEuxjR65J "For me a lot of "good taste" is about adding complexity when it's needed, and avoiding it when it's not needed. And if you do have complexity, making sure you have the tools so you can debug things when they break. And for me one of the things that I don't like about systemd is that it has…

The problem I see with any complaints about Lennart's behavior is that his behavior is explicitly rewarded. No one is really "routing around the damage", unless they're taking the dysfunctional route of ignoring problems with the software. Lennart has been "crowned" with the position of being the de-facto leader of Linux init systems, since just about every distro that matters at all has adopted systemd. So unless th…

Out of curiosity, who put him in that position?

Re: Why Did It Take Devuan Two Years to Replace Systemd?

#32

Post by smhenderson »

bandrami wrote: post #18

I mean, it is kind of strange that with one apt-get install, one apt-get purge, one apt-get autoremove, and one pinfile in /etc/apt, you can replace systemd in Debian. You'd think Devuan could just do that and redistribute or something.

It's not systemd that's the problem, it's libsystemd0. Try removing it on Stretch. It's doable [0] but it's a pain and makes future maintenance fragile and error prone. And if I understand correctly once you do so you're not running Gnome on that system anymore...

[0] http://lkcl.net/reports/removing_systemd_from_debian/

Re: Why Did It Take Devuan Two Years to Replace Systemd?

#33

Post by slau »

wirrbel wrote: post #3

Sure, it might be because System D integrates so tightly with the whole ecosystem that it is hard to replace it. Or: Those folks who write rants about system d are not very active in contributing to a distribution that runs without it. With some discussions, you have that feeling that there are "those who talk, and those who do".

Or maybe we just gave up on Debian, and decided to spend our efforts somewhere else?

I've been fairly vocal against systemd, and not because of Poettering. I'm no fan of the man, and I strongly agree with a lot of the points he made in his initial blog posts when introducing systemd. I think he's probably very talented---I'm not in a position to judge that. I wouldn't be against systemd if it were just an init system. The problem is that it's not. That's the end of my argument. If systemd were just an init system, I'd be very happy to have it on my machines. Poettering even admitted this himself [1]:

> Well, systemd certainly covers more ground that it used to. It's not just an init system anymore, but the basic userspace building block to build an OS from, but we carefully make sure to keep most of the features optional. You can turn a lot off at compile time, and even more at runtime. Thus you can choose freely how much feature creeping you want.

In response, I've decided to not use systemd on my machines. I'm a patreon of xtraeme [2], the creator of Void Linux [3] and xbps (the package manager used in Void). Void Linux uses runit [4], which is exactly as simple and fast as I'd like it to be [5]. Working in startups, I haven't had time to contribute code to either xbps or Void, but at least I'm contributing in the way that I can. I didn't contribute to Devuan (other than seeding a few hundred TB of ISOs) for the same reason that I haven't contributed to Debian in a long time: I don't use it any more.

[1]: http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html

[2]: https://www.patreon.com/xtraeme

[3]: https://www.voidlinux.eu/

[4]: http://smarden.org/runit/

[5]: https://www.voidlinux.eu/usage/runit/

Re: Why Did It Take Devuan Two Years to Replace Systemd?

#34

Post by sseveran »

pmoriarty wrote: post #9
KirinDave wrote: post #2

I keep waiting for the reasoned, technical arguments against systemd instead of veiled metaphors, complaints about its creator, or protestations that it's different. The initd-inspired community has resisted the push for declarative and component-based core system infrastructure for so long, and it's causing very strange distortions to the linux ecosystem as solutions get sought for the problems it introduces. System…

One of the main problems was the speed with which systemd was rolled out on all the major Linux distros, despite it being relatively immature and very controversial at that. The second major issue is it growing way out of the bounds of being just an init replacement, thereby violating the so-called Unix Philosophy of doing one-thing well. For a user app to do that is one thing, but for a core OS component to do that…

All that may be true. But I prefer today writing a little file that is a systemd service than fixing up someone else's init scripts.

If it is as broken as you say why was it adopted?

Re: Why Did It Take Devuan Two Years to Replace Systemd?

#35

Post by wirrbel »

aleksei wrote: post #17
wirrbel wrote: post #3

Sure, it might be because System D integrates so tightly with the whole ecosystem that it is hard to replace it. Or: Those folks who write rants about system d are not very active in contributing to a distribution that runs without it. With some discussions, you have that feeling that there are "those who talk, and those who do".

Well, people are allowed to have opinions even if they dont' have the time, resources, or know-how to contribute to a solution, so yes, there may very well be "those who talk, and those who do". I don't see what your point is.

people are allowed to have their opinions, and after a while, I reserve my right to not listen to certain opinions anymore if they are not backed up.

Re: Why Did It Take Devuan Two Years to Replace Systemd?

#36

Post by benchaney »

wirrbel wrote: post #35
aleksei wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, people are allowed to have opinions even if they dont' have the time, resources, or know-how to contribute to a solution, so yes, there may very well be "those who talk, and those who do". I don't see what your point is.

people are allowed to have their opinions, and after a while, I reserve my right to not listen to certain opinions anymore if they are not backed up.

If that is the attitude you take don't be surprised when people don't listen to your opinions.

Re: Why Did It Take Devuan Two Years to Replace Systemd?

#37

Post by bandrami »

smhenderson wrote: post #32
bandrami wrote: post #18

I mean, it is kind of strange that with one apt-get install, one apt-get purge, one apt-get autoremove, and one pinfile in /etc/apt, you can replace systemd in Debian. You'd think Devuan could just do that and redistribute or something.

It's not systemd that's the problem, it's libsystemd0. Try removing it on Stretch. It's doable [0] but it's a pain and makes future maintenance fragile and error prone. And if I understand correctly once you do so you're not running Gnome on that system anymore... [0] http://lkcl.net/reports/removing_systemd_from_debian/

I don't run dbus, let alone Gnome. (getting X11 to work without dbus on Debian is also a pain, though also doable.)

Re: Why Did It Take Devuan Two Years to Replace Systemd?

#38

Post by kazinator »

Say I want to create an independent, 100% compatible implementation of systemd which can just drop-in to any systemd installation, no matter how it is configured and have it work?

Where can I download the precise set of requirements for this, so that I don't have to peek at the systemd source code?

What is systemd?

Re: Why Did It Take Devuan Two Years to Replace Systemd?

#39

Post by ksk »

dijit wrote: post #21
KirinDave wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Either: Linus's behavior is fine and this is expected in the FSF community OR We burn all those MLs into the ground. Terrible culture in these projects is basically how everyone is conditioned to interact from the top down. We can't pick and choose which assholes are okay and which are not. We either push back on all of them to make a more professional environment or we accept this is what we want.

Let's get something distinct: Linus is like Gordon Ramsey.. If you should know better and you do junk work then you will be shit on. I've seen Linus handle people numerous times who are learning or do not claim to be experts and he is always respectful, civil and a lot less blunt. Not to mention the fact that when Linus is shitting on people it's often because they broke something for the "user"[0]. Lennart is not th…

>If you should know better and you do junk work then you will be shit on.

>times who are learning or do not claim to be experts

That makes no sense. If _Linus_ thinks you should know better is not the same as "they claim to be experts". According to you, who has claimed to be an expert and demanded that Linus should listen to them?

>and has a _huge_ ego.

Sounds a lot like Linus Torvalds.

>I have an ego the size of a small planet, but I'm not _always_ right

>I'm an egotistical bastard, and I name all my projects after myself. First Linux, now git.

>I'm always right. This time I'm just even more right than usual.

All direct quotes from him.

>I've seen Linus handle people numerous times who are learning or do not claim to be experts and he is always respectful, civil and a lot less blunt.

People who are sometimes rude to others can also be sometimes nice to others. This is not surprising in the least.

Re: Why Did It Take Devuan Two Years to Replace Systemd?

#40

Post by happypants23 »

pmoriarty wrote: post #9
KirinDave wrote: post #2

I keep waiting for the reasoned, technical arguments against systemd instead of veiled metaphors, complaints about its creator, or protestations that it's different. The initd-inspired community has resisted the push for declarative and component-based core system infrastructure for so long, and it's causing very strange distortions to the linux ecosystem as solutions get sought for the problems it introduces. System…

One of the main problems was the speed with which systemd was rolled out on all the major Linux distros, despite it being relatively immature and very controversial at that. The second major issue is it growing way out of the bounds of being just an init replacement, thereby violating the so-called Unix Philosophy of doing one-thing well. For a user app to do that is one thing, but for a core OS component to do that…

The second major issue is it growing way out of the bounds of being just an init replacement, thereby violating the so-called Unix Philosophy of doing one-thing well.

I keep on hearing this overly worn "Unix Philosophy" argument against systemd, which in the absence of any non-religious technical justification, basically boils down to "its different".

All of this adds up to a storm of controversy that the systemd people mostly brought upon themselves. Had they just been more humble about their creation and waited until it was mature and well-tested and did all the wonderful things they claim it could and should do instead of stuffing what was widely seen as a broken-by-design piece of garbage down everybody's throat, maybe much of the Linux community wouldn't have been nearly so outraged by it.

Nobody shoved anything down anyone's throat, least not the SystemD developers. And the same goes for PulseAudio, DBUS, and all the other projects on freedesktop.org.

Anyway, in reality, software does not become mature and well-tested without early exposure to real users and systems. Chicken-and-egg problem there.

I feel absolutely no sympathy for those who are outraged. There are many distributions out there (including Devuan) which align with their particular vision of an OS should be.

Post reply on HN