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

Systemd redux: The end of Linux

blog.lusis.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 464 posts

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#441

Post by julie1 »

the_why_of_y wrote: post #438
dschiptsov wrote: post #232

Going against the "divide et impera" principle, "do just one thing, and do it well", "everything is a text file" (configurations and logs) and "pipes" which are very natural idiom, in a UNIX-like system which has been built upon these principles , is just bad engineering, shallow understanding and, perhaps, too high ambitions of knowing better how to fix what isn't broken. The question why do we have this project and…

If the problems with sysvinit are all imaginary then why has every other UNIX replaced it? Mac OS X has launchd for 10 years now. Solaris 10 replaced sysvinit with SMF. Don't have any experience with AIX but the documentation says it has a "System Resource Controller" with a "srcmstr" daemon to manage services; though it looks like it runs on top of something sysvinit-like: http://www-01.ibm.com/support/knowledgecent…

Problem 0: Yes sysinit has problems but systemd brings even more problems (journalctl, PID 1, dependancy Hell ++, undeterministic bootup process)

Systemd is a broken silver bullet for handling the decrease in quality of packaging.

There are problems with sysinit: the first one is the missing link between devs and syadmins in companies: people known as packagers.

For a sysinit to work well shell scripts, permissions, where resources are located, the dependency management has to be done with art and expertise. It is a human job with human which are:

1) a very skilled rare resource, 2) not identified has needed by companies, 3) company's software QA is shitty (it has barely the level it works for me (tm) of quality

Talking about debian, which is considered the distribution with the most talented packagers debian has 2 flows in this domain:

* too rigid: projects goes for logical units of packaging that are consistent and organization of assets in packages that can ease maintaining. Debian has its guideline that makes them «fix» poorly packaged softwares like lateX, python, ruby: cutting language distro in at least runtime, dev, extra. Debian packagers are often debian experts, not upstream software package experts and they first break some stuffs (latex is so poorly packaged on debian it can be considered broken), AND it adds more works

* too much features typical linux distro compared to BSD are pacakging fucking more packages in their core resulting in more work; less attentions to the details and conflicts of functionality/overlaps. This result in more resource drained from the packagers. Like we have 4 shells considered OK for writing shell related stuff, when they have only one: «sh».

The problem of linux vs BSD is symbolized by the systemd vs sysinit: linux is an OS of devops that are super devops, poor coders and sysadmins, BSD is an OS of sysadmins and devs that are good sysadmins and devs, but no devops.

And we still lack in 2014 of maintainer, sysadmins and coders of quality.

Linux/Gnome ... FSF projects are not sustainable in these conditions. They think of free software has an infinite resource of benevolence. And they exponentially overblow the works required for maintaining, deploying ... thus they are mathematically doomed to die under their own weight.

I see BSD as a calvinist boring protestant community turned towards humility doing what is right and linuces as catholic exhuberant rockstars over spending the good will of developers without thinking of the future.

Being lutherian, I still dream of THE right OS that would less terse than BSD.

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#442

Post by the_why_of_y »

lmm wrote: post #239
andyl wrote: post #7

Everything I read about SystemD is negative. Negative on the technology, negative on the people who created it. Nothing positive. How is it that SystemD is about to dominate the market? Who is driving SystemD adoption, and why?

> How is it that SystemD is about to dominate the market? Who is driving SystemD adoption, and why? Redhat, Gnome and Pottering. While no-one can know exactly what they're thinking, it's in Redhat (and other commercial linux vendors') interest for more software to be more tightly coupled to linux and not run on other OSes. And Gnome is mostly developed by people who work for these commercial linux vendors (in a notab…

Of course the good people of KDE will take a stand against the evil corporations and would never ever consider using that vile systemd-logind abomination!

http://blog.martin-graesslin.com/blog/2014/10/libinput-integ...

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#443

Post by simoncion »

digi_owl wrote: post #425
simoncion wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm afraid that I have no idea what you're trying to say. Would you elaborate?

Gnome apparently assumes someone else is supposed to clean up after them, and so leave processes behind. In essence, systemd has becomes Gnome's mother...

As anyone who's used a language at least as modern as C will tell you, it's awfully nice when a runtime system will help you clean up when your task terminates.

My beef with the article that the GGP links to is not that GDM now requires such a system (strategic laziness is a virtue!), but that the author refuses to admit that

1) There currently exists only one such runtime system that provides the behavior that GDM relies on.

2) There is absolutely no guarantee that the GDM folks won't come to rely on more systemd implementation detail in the future. Indeed, given the way Gnome development seems to happen, it's almost a certainty that GDM will depend on more and more systemd implementation detail in an entirely ad-hoc manner as time goes on.

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#444

Post by lmm »

the_why_of_y wrote: post #442
lmm wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How is it that SystemD is about to dominate the market? Who is driving SystemD adoption, and why? Redhat, Gnome and Pottering. While no-one can know exactly what they're thinking, it's in Redhat (and other commercial linux vendors') interest for more software to be more tightly coupled to linux and not run on other OSes. And Gnome is mostly developed by people who work for these commercial linux vendors (in a notab…

Of course the good people of KDE will take a stand against the evil corporations and would never ever consider using that vile systemd-logind abomination! http://blog.martin-graesslin.com/blog/2014/10/libinput-integ...

Will KDE support systemd on platforms where it makes sense? Of course. Will KDE drop support for non-systemd systems the way Gnome has? I find that virtually unimaginable.

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#445

Post by the_why_of_y »

digi_owl wrote: post #439
andrewaylett wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lennart's view is that he did all he could to avoid breaking using GNOME with ConsoleKit: http://lwn.net/Articles/621182/

While at the same time giving every indication that consolekit was dead. http://erickoegel.wordpress.com/2014/10/20/consolekit2/comme...

The mail from 2102 that is linked from your url contains this paragraph, wonder what happened to that plan?

"Ubuntu plans to take over maintainership (more precisely Martin Pitt from Canonical), to maintain it as long as they still need it, and will change the name while doing so."

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#446

Post by 101914 »

AaronFriel wrote: post #80

Perhaps this is a controversial idea, but is this not just someone finally taking the tried and true Open Source "advice" to heart? That is, every time I've reported something is broken, wonky, doesn't work reliably, et cetera, I've been told, "Submit a patch.", "Write some code.", or worse, "Implement it yourself." Someone finally got fed up with the haphazard state of affairs in Linux-land. Fed up with the fragment…

"Someone finally got fed up with the haphazard state of affairs in Linux-land"

But wouldn't the path of least resistance be to switch to a project that does not have this "haphazard state of affairs"?

When I originally tried Linux I got fed up within _days_. It is the _relative_ lack of default "configuration" (that is decided by someone else) that makes me stay with FreeBSD and NetBSD. Of course, lack of default configuration is the antithesis of popular Linux distributions. Whenever I have to use one, I spend more time learning how to turn things off than I ever did learning how to turn things on.

The answer to the original question is, I think, "no", switching is probably not the path of least resistance for many Linux users. Because when the Linux user makes that switch, they immediately find that someone has not done everything for them.

And from what I have seen, observing the questions of Linux users who first try FreeBSD or NetBSD, they generally do not like that. It means they have to do some configuration of their own. And even if they are comfortable doing configuration, it means they have to learn things that are different from the "Linux way"; and they inevitably encounter shortcomings that are due to lack of developer resources (read: time).

In doing things for yourself you learn about how things work. The rc.d system that all BSD projects use is coherent and relatively easy to understand. For whatever that is worth.

This debate over systemd seems to cut to the core of the value of learning about how things work. The reader can draw their own conclusions.

Linux is only a kernel and it should still be possible and thus optional to run that kernel with a basic init (or init alternative, e.g., one based on daemontools) and with userland utilties that do not need systemd.

The question I have is how difficult the popular Linux distribution folks are going to make that for their users to do.

And if they do make it difficult, it raises the question, "Why?"

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#447

Post by ngrilly »

lmm wrote: post #231
AaronFriel wrote: post #80

Perhaps this is a controversial idea, but is this not just someone finally taking the tried and true Open Source "advice" to heart? That is, every time I've reported something is broken, wonky, doesn't work reliably, et cetera, I've been told, "Submit a patch.", "Write some code.", or worse, "Implement it yourself." Someone finally got fed up with the haphazard state of affairs in Linux-land. Fed up with the fragment…

Lennart didn't just submit the code and put it out there. He lobbied other projects to hard-depend on it, and lobbied distros to adopt it. Systemd didn't succeed where less poisonous equivalents failed because it was technically superior (it isn't), it succeeded because of shady back-room politics.

Let's say you're right. What kind of "political" leverage Lennard had to convince distros to use systemd?

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#448

Post by Dylan16807 »

general_failure wrote: post #366
Karunamon wrote: post #359

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To borrow a quote from a popular movie: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. Fifteen hundred years ago everybody knew the Earth was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, everybody knew the Earth was flat, and fifteen minutes ago, you knew that humans were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow.

I think this is trying to say you are as strong as the weakest link? Maybe it's trying to say something about group think. I mean all these movie quotes are all cool sounding but are quite shallow.

A large group is often dumber than its weakest link.

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#449

Post by bashinator »

the_why_of_y wrote: post #430
bashinator wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it would get adopted in its current form. Systemd is a massive violation of the Principle of Least Astonishment[0]. [0] http://www.unixguide.net/freebsd/faq/16.17.shtml

To avoid violating this principle, the commonly accepted industry best practice to never change anything at all.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If it is broke, make sure people still know how to use it after you're done fixing it.

As an aside, I've heard it theorized that part of the reason Microsoft tends to do massive GUI facelifts every few releases, is to keep the Windows/Office training industry going strong.

Re: Systemd redux: The end of Linux

#450

Post by TheLoneWolfling »

josteink wrote: post #436
TheLoneWolfling wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for doing this. That being said, it's a little too esoteric for my tastes (among other things: "if you are looking for a stable production system that respects your freedom as a computer user, a good solution at this point is to consider one of more established GNU/Linux distributions."). Do you know of any Linux distros that a) don't use systemd, b) are vaguely active / supported, and c) run on UEFI? (My c…

> Do you know of any Linux distros that a) don't use systemd, b) are vaguely active / supported, and c) run on UEFI? Not addressing any other of your points, doesn't most laptops/computers which ships with UEFI allow you to set it to boot in "legacy-BIOS" mode? Even if you're currently UEFI-booting, I would be seriously surprised if UEFI-support was a requirement for every OS your machine can boot.

I dual boot with Windows 8 for games. Windows 8 will work without UEFI, but I haven't found any information about how to downgrade an existing UEFI-based windows 8 partition to legacy bios, or if it is safe/feasible to do so. In particular, the non-existent bootloader. (Windows, as usual, seems to take the approach of "wipe + reformat", which is not exactly optimal.) If you have any ideas, feel free to let me know.

And regardless, this is a temporary solution.

Post reply on HN