[dead]
Devuan – Debian Without Systemd
51–60 of 221 posts
Re: Devuan – Debian Without Systemd
#52Honest question here: why do people hate systemd so much?
Its a new thing to learn.
A lot of people like the do one thing well philosophy and systemd is intended to be an entire additional OS layer. People like systemd if they want more uniformity between distros.
The systemd developers are not exactly open to suggestions and criticism. Have a look through their issues!
Re: Devuan – Debian Without Systemd
#53I don't care: I can administer with relatively high confidence any Redhat- or Debian-derivate. Thanks to systems. Most issues regarding systemd I encountered were due to a halfway adoption (Debian). Some things like timers are a bit more cumbersome than "the old way", but I wouldn't want to miss the added robustness. Most things systemd implements lead to _less_ issues. And writing a systemd unit is pretty easy, cont…
That's good for you! Isn't that a selfish view, though? "Works for me,so I don't care that systemd is creating dependencies everywhere for everyone else". I appreciate that it simplifies some things, but I can't understand that you can't choose which parts of it to install, or even replace parts of it with alternatives. Isn't linux about choice? It feels we're going on a downwards spiral where choice is being taken a…
> I appreciate that it simplifies some things, but I can't understand that you can't choose which parts of it to install, or even replace parts of it with alternatives.
You can? The system where I'm writing this uses systemd, yet networking is handled by NetworkManager and not systemd-networkd. Time keeping is handled by chrony and not systemd-timesyncd (or whatever the systemd NTP client was called). Etc. Systemd in fact has many components that are optional. Of course, there are also parts of it that are non-optional, just like many other collections of related software.
> Isn't linux about choice?
Linux is "about choice" to the extent that the source code is freely available, and if you don't like what upstream is doing, you have the choice to fork it and do whatever you want. "Linux is about choice" does not extend to upstream maintainers being obligated to cater to every whim of every end user.
Case in point, Devuan: Not being satisfied with the path Debian was taking, they exercised their choice and are now doing their own thing. Good for them! And to the extent this has reduced the frequency of systemd haters starting yet another anti-systemd flame war on the Debian mailing lists, it seems to me Debian has won too. Hooray!
Re: Devuan – Debian Without Systemd
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
> * "bUt yOu DoNt hAVe tO uSE it" - tell that to the remote attestation crowd, of which Poettering is a founding member of. see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46784572 - soon you'll have to use systemD because nothing else can be used. You're saying that because the person who made systemd now work on hardware attestation, all Linux distributions will eventually require remote hardware attestation, where users…
If you build remote attestation into your product, corporate entities will require it. Just look at Android - What phones today give you unlimited root? If you have rooted, what applications have you broken? If you root, what e-fuses have you blown in your CPU meaning it can never be un-rooted? Android, at the start, was open and freely modified - not so much anymore. Companies like Google can and have cut off access…
I think phones are a completely different beast though (and already a lost cause), PCs seems a lot more resilient to that sort of lock down.
But on the other hand, you might be right, you never know how the future looks. But personally I'll wait until there is at least some signal that it's moving in that direction, before I start prepping for it to actually happening.
Re: Devuan – Debian Without Systemd
#55Honest question here: why do people hate systemd so much?
As my friend said:
>If the old h4xx0rs make it easy and convenient so that there is no effort working with the system, their ass will fall off.
Re: Devuan – Debian Without Systemd
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it someone's else's fault for that systemd has dependencies or that others depend on systemd? If I use and like Firefox, and others depend on Firefox, or Firefox depend on others, then it's Firefox fault for you choosing Firefox? I really don't understand the argument you're trying to make. You had choices before systemd, and you still have choices even though systemd is widespread, what's the problem? It isn'…
Red Hat created hard dependencies on systemd in all of the popular software they develop to ensure its adoption.
So if you don't like that, don't you still have the choice not to use software developed by Red Hat?
Re: Devuan – Debian Without Systemd
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it someone's else's fault for that systemd has dependencies or that others depend on systemd? If I use and like Firefox, and others depend on Firefox, or Firefox depend on others, then it's Firefox fault for you choosing Firefox? I really don't understand the argument you're trying to make. You had choices before systemd, and you still have choices even though systemd is widespread, what's the problem? It isn'…
With everything depending on systemd interfaces, its an exhausting uphill battle to run anything desktop-like without systemd. Want to run xterm? Requires Xorg. rootless Xorg requires udev, udev turned into a systemd component. want to run xterm without systemd? good luck, you are now the maintainer of your own LFS.
> With everything depending on systemd interfaces, its an exhausting uphill battle to run anything desktop-like without systemd.
Yes, but this is hardly a unique systemd/Linux problem. I despise TypeScript for various reasons, always preferred vanilla JavaScript over TypeScript. So if I'm met with "Huh, this library is using TypeScript, am I ready to deal with that", I make the choice to not depend on that, even though half of the ecosystem uses TypeScript.
Going against the grain comes with more work probably, but this is also a choice we make, because we have strong feelings and opinions about something.
Re: Devuan – Debian Without Systemd
#58As a passionate systemd hater I still will not go back to using older bash-based initsystems and thus devuan. I strongly believe that systemd brand is a worst thing that happened to Linux, hindering the spread and innovation in the Linux space, but at the same time I have to admit that systemd-as-pid1 is the best init system out there.
> As a passionate systemd hater I still will not go back to using older bash-based initsystems and thus devuan.
Devuan lets you choose an init system so you do not have to use sys V init: https://www.devuan.org/os/init-freedom
A number of other distros also use init systems other than sysv init or systemd: Void, Alphine, etc.
Re: Devuan – Debian Without Systemd
#59Love/hate systemd as I might, it's been rock solid everywhere I've used it, and I've used it heavily. It has it's quirks, as does the init-scripts that came before, and launchd on OSX (not sure what the modern equivalent is for MacOS). However, the systemd journal raw format is binary data and would much rather a plain text log. All things being equal I'd rather deal with human readable files.
Personally I would much rather they had simply used an existing database file format. For example, sqlite3 which is robust and already present in the default installation of most Linux distributions. Querying system logs with SQL would be cool and make things a bit easier unlike the sd_journal API with it's strange/bizarre quirks.
Re: Devuan – Debian Without Systemd
#60I don't care: I can administer with relatively high confidence any Redhat- or Debian-derivate. Thanks to systems. Most issues regarding systemd I encountered were due to a halfway adoption (Debian). Some things like timers are a bit more cumbersome than "the old way", but I wouldn't want to miss the added robustness. Most things systemd implements lead to _less_ issues. And writing a systemd unit is pretty easy, cont…
you can use and like and still complain about things that should be better or were better under old.
systemd solved a ton of headaches but also added few more, like inability to express "just shut the fucking system down, you won't have power in 5 minutes" for servers connected to UPS.
> And writing a systemd unit is pretty easy, contrary to the old bash script mess.
We had thousands of lines of "simple" sysv init scripts fixes because apparently even seasoned maintainers or developers of the app can't figure it out. It's huge improvement.
One example: A java app that writes its own pid. The status subcommand relies on the pid existing.
so calling start then status will return that the service haven't started yet. And that is what stuff like for example Pacemaker does so it could just randomly fail under sysv. Under systemd it's all so much simpler