vezzy-fnord! I have always enjoyed your commentary and perspective of operating system, it's nice to see you back again!
Systemd, ten years later: a historical and technical retrospective
41–50 of 458 posts
Re: Systemd, ten years later: a historical and technical retrospective
#42I think this really sums this article up: > One thing I’m certain of is that this shift cannot emerge from dilettantes, outsiders and proverbial basement hackers. One does not unseat a platform without already being part of the patriciate that calls the shots on what gets integrated where across the largest nodes in the ecosystem. It’s a long, turgid “why wasn’t I consulted?” complaint which really just comes back to…
Voting share ? There is no vote unless you work for RH. And even then. An init system is harder then it seems ? You and Jonnax seem to think that unless you made it you have no right to say anything. Have you ever made an init system ? Researched what exactly goes into it ? Sure, there's more then just starting programs. But not much more. The only really complicated thing about getting a [linux] computer from kernel…
As a FreeBSD and Mercurial user, I get more than a little schadenfreude when Linux users complain about something being foisted on them by someone with a more dominant mindshare or marketshare.
Linux users spoke and set the system up to do exactly what it does--use a dominant position to drive out alternatives. They only complain when they suddenly wind up on the receiving end.
Perhaps if you don't like getting the pointy end of the stick, maybe you shouldn't sharpen it in the first place?
Re: Systemd, ten years later: a historical and technical retrospective
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
Voting share ? There is no vote unless you work for RH. And even then. An init system is harder then it seems ? You and Jonnax seem to think that unless you made it you have no right to say anything. Have you ever made an init system ? Researched what exactly goes into it ? Sure, there's more then just starting programs. But not much more. The only really complicated thing about getting a [linux] computer from kernel…
> An init system is harder then it seems ? You and Jonnax seem to think that unless you made it you have no right to say anything. Have you ever made an init system ? Researched what exactly goes into it ? Sure, there's more then just starting programs. But not much more. The only really complicated thing about getting a [linux] computer from kernel boot to firefox is setting up devices. And even that [udev,"hotplug"…
Weren't Debian maintainers affected by the fact that it was... problematic to run Gnome without systemd? (Which might be entirety not systemd's fault.)
Re: Systemd, ten years later: a historical and technical retrospective
#44I think this really sums this article up: > One thing I’m certain of is that this shift cannot emerge from dilettantes, outsiders and proverbial basement hackers. One does not unseat a platform without already being part of the patriciate that calls the shots on what gets integrated where across the largest nodes in the ecosystem. It’s a long, turgid “why wasn’t I consulted?” complaint which really just comes back to…
Syntax wars are harder than it might seem at first. If you're not going to invest that amount of time, I don't see how it’s reasonable to expect an equal voting share with those who do.
Sometimes vocal minority is just that.
Re: Systemd, ten years later: a historical and technical retrospective
#45Oh good, the monthly HN systemd 5 minute hate is upon us once again.
It's worth considering why the topic makes such a regular appearance. I suggest it might be because that so many users of this website find it to be a remarkable example of not only how something so widely unpopular can become so widely established, but also being something that they have to contend with frequently.
Re: Systemd, ten years later: a historical and technical retrospective
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
Screen still works. I use it all the time. Do you have decent examples of it failing to work? If so, then that sounds like a bug against screen. The link you provide is absolutely huge and from three years ago. Please give me a simple "stages to reproduce ..." style report. Please keep it simple and short and I'll fill in the blanks if I can and only trouble you for stuff I'm too daft to work out.
To answer your question: remote login, start screen, ctl-A d (detach), log out, log back in, screen -r (resume) - there is no screen session because it was killed by systemd immediately after log out. (syslog entry: May 3 09:01:25 $HOSTNAME systemd[1]: session-6.scope: Killing process 3290 (screen) with signal SIGTERM. ) But that's hardly the point, the point is the toxic "you're doing it wrong" mentality that infest…
> remote login, start screen, ctl-A d (detach), log out, log back in, screen -r (resume)
I just tried it on a fully up-to-date CentOS 8 box (which uses systemd), and it worked perfectly fine: after logging back in through ssh, `screen -r` restored the screen session as expected.
From what I have read, that screen session would only be killed if I had set KillUserProcesses=yes on /etc/systemd/logind.conf, which is not the default.
Re: Systemd, ten years later: a historical and technical retrospective
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
> An init system is harder then it seems ? You and Jonnax seem to think that unless you made it you have no right to say anything. Have you ever made an init system ? Researched what exactly goes into it ? Sure, there's more then just starting programs. But not much more. The only really complicated thing about getting a [linux] computer from kernel boot to firefox is setting up devices. And even that [udev,"hotplug"…
Weren't Debian maintainers affected by the fact that it was... problematic to run Gnome without systemd? (Which might be entirety not systemd's fault.)
GNOME didn't have any significant systemd integration until well after Debian had decided to go ahead with it.
I remember this being a strong supporter, among others: https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/01/msg00287.html
Re: Systemd, ten years later: a historical and technical retrospective
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
> An init system is harder than it might seem at first […] systemd-as-init-system is not the problem. systemd-as-kitchen-sink is the problem. It's the tight coupling that annoys many people. Does udevd really need to be in the same repo? While there may be some nice things about journald, does it really have to be in the same source package? (And why can't it support remote logging with the industry standard syslog p…
Yeah, don't get me started on the fragile glass test tube called systemd-resolved that fails in mysterious ways when I use wicd on Ubuntu and the WiFi gets momentarily disconnected. I don't see the sense behind treating name resolution as something so special that it has to be part of an init system. I like the overall theoretical concept of systemd but it has ugly implementation details like this.
But systemd-resolved is such an odd complaint since it’s only connection to systemd is the name and that it’s in the same repo. It’s not connected to the init system at all.
Re: Systemd, ten years later: a historical and technical retrospective
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
Screen still works. I use it all the time. Do you have decent examples of it failing to work? If so, then that sounds like a bug against screen. The link you provide is absolutely huge and from three years ago. Please give me a simple "stages to reproduce ..." style report. Please keep it simple and short and I'll fill in the blanks if I can and only trouble you for stuff I'm too daft to work out.
To answer your question: remote login, start screen, ctl-A d (detach), log out, log back in, screen -r (resume) - there is no screen session because it was killed by systemd immediately after log out. (syslog entry: May 3 09:01:25 $HOSTNAME systemd[1]: session-6.scope: Killing process 3290 (screen) with signal SIGTERM. ) But that's hardly the point, the point is the toxic "you're doing it wrong" mentality that infest…
[deleted]
Re: Systemd, ten years later: a historical and technical retrospective
#50[deleted]