Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably not, but it looks a hell of a lot harder to understand than a unit file.
Huh? Not even remotely
[deleted]
Linux From Scratch ends SysVinit support
321–330 of 416 posts
Re: Linux From Scratch ends SysVinit support
#322Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably not, but it looks a hell of a lot harder to understand than a unit file.
Huh? Not even remotely
It's probably straightforward for someone who works with it. For a newb like me, it needs effort to understand. I think unit files are self-documenting and straightforward to understand the first time you see them.
Re: Linux From Scratch ends SysVinit support
#323Earlier quoted context omitted.
What practical problems do you run into with systemd? All the compliants I see tend to be philisophical criticism of systemd being "not unixy" or "monolithic". But there's a reason it's being adopted: it does it's job well. It's a pleasure being able to manage timers, socket activations, sandboxing, and resource slices, all of which suck to configure on script based init systems. People complain in website comment se…
> But there's a reason it's being adopted: it does it's job well My problem with systemd is that it's taking over more and more and locking in . It is encouraging developers to have a hard dependency on it, and making it harder to have an alternative. My problem is not philosophical with "it's a monolith, it's not unixy". My problem is "it's on the way to lock me in". We like to complain about lock-in across the boar…
It's not a lock-in as much as making a much better product.
For example, I never liked the idea of having my programs to manually daemonize, manage logs, set up permissions and all that boring, but security-critical stuff. And with systemd, I don't have to! Program reads from stdin/stdout, maybe gets socket from socket activation, and systemd does the rest.
Is it lock-in? Only because other system suck. Like, seriously, what stopped xinetd from having rudimentary volatile "on/off" control, so I could disable misbehaving service? Or why is start-stop-daemon so _stupid_, discarding all startup error messages? And don't get me started on all the different init file dialects for each system.
Maybe if the sysvinit programmers actually cared about providing nicer services to app developers, we would never end up with systemd.
Re: Linux From Scratch ends SysVinit support
#324Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you got it backwards. Systemd is a standardization that is appealing to developers. They want to adopt it because it makes their life easier. It is just nice to know that all the tools you need for a system are there and work together. Pluggability is hard to maintain and is only done if there is no standardization. I somehow don't think your gripe is with systemd but with developers who prefer the easy route…
I don't think it's backwards; it's not incompatible with what you said. > It is just nice to know that all the tools you need for a system are there and work together. It is indeed! Just like everybody uses WhatsApp for a reason. But because everybody uses WhatsApp, it is very difficult to get traction with an alternative. That's the lock-in part. It is easier for developers to only care about systemd. It's often wor…
I'd argue that "do it right" and "be nice" are incredibly subjective. I'd say they were already nice enough to write open source software. And I don't think it is wrong to to write what you want to write.
The comparison with WhatsApp has a a huge flaw: WhatsApp is not LGPL licensed software. No one can really take systemd away. There is very little risk in depending on it apart from less choice. But I already argued that the expectation of choice in free software is a big ask.
And there is no one stopping anyone from implementing systemd's api surface.
The reason why I say you got it backwards is that you are against systemd making available all their tools when in reality it is the distro maintainers choice to use them and the developers choice to depend on them. Most of systemd is optional and nothing prevents developers from writing abstractions. But the simple truth is that systemd is offering a compelling value that people are just accepting.
Re: Linux From Scratch ends SysVinit support
#325Earlier 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.…
Except for the main pid1 process, systemd is one of the most customizeable things, certainly much more than old shell-based things. Everything is documented, can be disabled or replaced, and in such a way that the rest of the system can keep functioning, and the system upgrades don't mess it up. A lot of people said you can edit /etc/init/ scripts, but this was pretty annoying, as the moment you upgrade the package,…
I am not sure if we are talking about the same thing. I am not saying that systemd is bad. I am saying that when a project has a hard dependency on systemd (which is not necessarily systemd's fault, to be fair), then it doesn't work with an alternative init system.
Re: Linux From Scratch ends SysVinit support
#326Earlier quoted context omitted.
What practical problems do you run into with systemd? All the compliants I see tend to be philisophical criticism of systemd being "not unixy" or "monolithic". But there's a reason it's being adopted: it does it's job well. It's a pleasure being able to manage timers, socket activations, sandboxing, and resource slices, all of which suck to configure on script based init systems. People complain in website comment se…
Ohh... I have sooooo many issues with systemd. The core systemd is fine, and the ideas behind it are sound. But it lacks any consistency. It's not a cohesive project with a vision, it's a collection of tools without any overarching idea. This is reflected in its documentation, it's an OK reference manual, but go on and try to build a full picture of system startup. To give you concrete examples: 1. Systemd has mount…
That is one of my problems with systemd: it has way to much "magic" built in. SysVinit/OpenRC and related are easy to understand and debug: they only do what's in the scripts.
Re: Linux From Scratch ends SysVinit support
#327Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Send me an email and I'll be happy to explain further, to whoever asks. I don't want to clutter up this thread with a bunch of arguing that will surely result, as the focus here is just on "going our separate ways" rather than throwing barbs at anyone, or causing more hard feelings.
People who like software that I don't personally like may continue to use it of course, with this system also even, it's just that it won't be in the official repository is all. But as the whole thing is designed and encouraged to be forked, that shouldn't be too much of a burden if someone likes other aspects of the system and wants to maintain their own 'systemd/wayland' version.
Re: Linux From Scratch ends SysVinit support
#328Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not about mindless worship, but about the fact that the UNIX design has stood the test of time for this long, and is still a solid base compared to most other operating systems. Sure, there are more modern designs that improve on security and capability (seL4/Genode/Sculpt, Fuchsia), but none are as usable or accessible as UNIX. So when it comes to projects that teach the fundamentals of GNU/Linux, such as LF…
The first version of UNIX was released in 1971 and the first version of Windows NT in 1993. So UNIX is only about 60% older than NT. Both OSes have "stood the test of time", though one passed it with a dominant market share, whereas the other didn't. And systemd is heavily inspired by NT. Time flies fast, faster than recycled arguments. :)
I'm confused as to which OS is the one that passed the other with dominant market share. Last I checked, Linux is everywhere, and Windows just keeps getting worse with every iteration.
I'm not sure I'd be smugly pronouncing anything about the superiority of Windows if I were a Microsoft guy today.
It's not surprising that systemd was heavily inspired by NT. That's exactly what Poettering was paid to create, by his employer Microsoft. (Oh, sorry--RedHat, and then "later" Microsoft.)
Re: Linux From Scratch ends SysVinit support
#329Earlier quoted context omitted.
What’s suicidal about the BSD license? BSD code is everywhere
Yes and much of it is sealed off and proprietary. The bsd oses got MacOS for all their hard work, a closed off system that they can't read or port back anything from. Someone would say linux or gpl projects also have been fucked over this way. I suppose if your house has been burgled, such a person would argue we must remove all protections rather than add more.
MIT et al are winning over GPL for a reason.
I'm not a big corporation. I prefer MIT, or better yet, public domain.
Re: Linux From Scratch ends SysVinit support
#330Earlier quoted context omitted.
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."
Turns out free beer is great, even when it is warm.
The only good beer is warm beer. If the beer tastes like shit when it's warm, it's not good beer.