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

Linux From Scratch ends SysVinit support

lists.linuxfromscratch.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 416 posts

Re: Linux From Scratch ends SysVinit support

#71

Post by razighter777 »

antonyh wrote: post #27

All I want is init scripts and X11, but the horizons are shrinking. I've already compromised with systemd, and I don't like it. I see BSD in my future, or at least a linux distro from the list here https://nosystemd.org/ - probably Gentoo. Nothing to stop me, absolutely nothing at all. I just need a few days free to backup/wipe/reinstall/reconfigure/restore_data and I'll be good. Better make that a few weeks. Maybe o…

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 sections how "bloated" systemd is, while typing into reddit webpage that loads megabytes of JS crap.

Meanwhile a default systemd build with libraries is about 1.8MB. That's peanuts.

Systemd is leaps and bounds in front of other init systems, with robust tooling and documentation, and despite misconceptions it actually quite modular, with almost all features gated with options. It gives a consistent interface for linux across distributions, and provides a familar predictible tools for administators.

Re: Linux From Scratch ends SysVinit support

#72

Post by ktm5j »

cf100clunk wrote: post #22
eikenberry wrote: post #17

SysV init was the overengineered cousin to BSD init and I never liked it. Easily my least favorite of all init systems I've worked with over the last 30 years. On the flip side, daemontools or maybe runit were my favorites. Lots of good options for init/supervision tooling over the years and SysV was not among them.

If we look on LFS for its academic merit, I'm saddened that key historical elements of Unix/Linux design are being left behind, much like closing down a wing of a laboratory or museum and telling students that they'll need to whip up their own material to fill in those gaps.

From the announcement, it saddens them too:

> As a personal note, I do not like this decision. To me LFS is about learning how a system works. Understanding the boot process is a big part of that. systemd is about 1678 "C" files plus many data files. System V is "22" C files plus about 50 short bash scripts and data files.

However the reasoning they provide makes sense.. It's hard to build a Linux system with a desktop these days without Sysd.

Re: Linux From Scratch ends SysVinit support

#73

Post by bsimpson »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #64
tokyobreakfast wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if the impetus behind the (terrible) monolithic design of systemd was to force standardization across distros. The choice was more political than technical. If different choices were available for init, DNS resolver, service control manager, volume manager, etc... we would adversely contribute to the schizo distro landscape the people holding the money bags are actively trying to get away from. With systemd…

systemd is not a monolith, and distros make different choices on what portions of systemd they which to ship and enable by default. For example, not all distros ship and use systemd-resolved by default, to choose from your list.

systemd-boot competes with grub

Re: Linux From Scratch ends SysVinit support

#74

Post by user3939382 »

mirashii wrote: post #31
procone wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know this is a bit tongue in cheek, but the systemd hate is so old and tiresome at this point. I need my systems to work. Not once in my career have I experienced a showstopping issue with systemd. I cannot say the same for sysV.

Equally tiring is the “it works for me so stop complaining” replies, which do nothing to stop the complaints but do increase the probability of arguments. Want the complaint posts to stop? Suggesting that they’re in some way invalid is not the way.

Yeah, it’s so tiresome that other people have a philosophy different from mine which seems to have prevailed for now. Like ok so sorry. Systemd on linux is the worst of both worlds imho which apparently according to GP to which I’m progressively less entitled. I like NetBSD and its rc init and config system. Oh no systemd sore winners incoming!

Re: Linux From Scratch ends SysVinit support

#75

Post by ktm5j »

cientifico wrote: post #45
raggi wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://github.com/systemd/systemd/tree/main/src/core doesn't look like 1678 C files to me.

Github says 2.8k files when selecting c (including headers...) https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Asystemd%2Fsystemd++langua... If the project is even split in different parts that you need to understand... already makes the point.

Well to be fair, you don't need to understand how SystemD is built to know how to use it. Unit files are pretty easy to wrap your head around, it took me a while to adjust but I dig it now.

To make an analogy: another part of LFS is building a compiler toolchain. You don't need to understand GCC internals to know how to do that.

Re: Linux From Scratch ends SysVinit support

#76

Post by chucky_z »

procone wrote: post #14
soldoutcold wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am looking forward to UnixFromScratch and Year of Unix on the desktop as Linux more and more sells itself out to the overstuffed software virus that is System D.

I know this is a bit tongue in cheek, but the systemd hate is so old and tiresome at this point. I need my systems to work. Not once in my career have I experienced a showstopping issue with systemd. I cannot say the same for sysV.

I understand where you’re coming from but early systemd with both ubuntu and centos was a fucking mess. It’s good now but goddamn it was painful and the hate is 100% justified.

Re: Linux From Scratch ends SysVinit support

#77

Post by its_magic »

clintfred wrote: post #6
cf100clunk wrote: post #2

This is a mindblower. To quote Bruce Dubbs: ''As a personal note, I do not like this decision. To me LFS is about learning how a system works. Understanding the boot process is a big part of that. systemd is about 1678 "C" files plus many data files. System V is "22" C files plus about 50 short bash scripts and data files. Yes, systemd provides a lot of capabilities, but we will be losing some things I consider impor…

With limited resources, sometimes practicality needs to win. Kudos to Bruce for putting aside his (valid) feelings on the subject and doing what is best for the team and community overall.

I disagree.

I will soon be releasing a distro that is free of systemd, wayland, dbus, and other troublesome software. It is built starting from LFS in 2019, and now consists of over 1,500 packages, cross compiling to x86-32/64, powerpc32/64, and others if I had hardware to test. It's built entirely from shell scripts which are clean, organized, and easy to read.

I need help to get the system ready for release in 60-90 days. In particular, I need a fast build system, as my current 12+ year old workstation is too slow. Alpha/beta testers are welcome too. Anyone who wants to help in some way or hear more details, please get in touch:

domain: killthe.net

user: dave

Re: Linux From Scratch ends SysVinit support

#78

Post by nine_k »

cf100clunk wrote: post #2

This is a mindblower. To quote Bruce Dubbs: ''As a personal note, I do not like this decision. To me LFS is about learning how a system works. Understanding the boot process is a big part of that. systemd is about 1678 "C" files plus many data files. System V is "22" C files plus about 50 short bash scripts and data files. Yes, systemd provides a lot of capabilities, but we will be losing some things I consider impor…

Runit is 5474 SLOCs. Most source files are shorter than 100 lines. Works like a charm. Implements an init system; does not replace DNS, syslog, inetd, or anything else.

Systemd, by construction, is a set of Unix-replacing daemons. An ideal embedded system setup is kernel, systemd, and the containers it runs (even without podman). This makes sense, especially given the Red Hat's line of business, but it has little relation to the Unix design, or to learning how to do things from scratch.

Re: Linux From Scratch ends SysVinit support

#79

Post by cyberax »

razighter777 wrote: post #71
antonyh wrote: post #27

All I want is init scripts and X11, but the horizons are shrinking. I've already compromised with systemd, and I don't like it. I see BSD in my future, or at least a linux distro from the list here https://nosystemd.org/ - probably Gentoo. Nothing to stop me, absolutely nothing at all. I just need a few days free to backup/wipe/reinstall/reconfigure/restore_data and I'll be good. Better make that a few weeks. Maybe o…

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 units, that you would expect to behave like regular units but for mounts. Except that they don't. You can specify the service retry/restart policy for regular units, including start/stop timeouts, but not for mounts.

2. Except that you can, but only if you use the /etc/fstab compat.

3. Except that you can not, if systemd thinks that your mounts are "local". How does it determine if mounts are local? By checking its mount device.

4. Systemd has separate behaviors for network and local filesystems.

5. One fun example of above, there's a unit that fires up after each system update. It inserts itself _before_ the network startup. Except that in my case, the /dev/sda is actually an iSCSI device and so it's remote. So systemd deadlocks, but only after a system update. FUN!!!

6. How does systemd recognize network filesystems? Why, it has a pre-configured list of them: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/blob/4c6afaab193fcdcb1f5a... Yes, you read it correctly. A low-level mount code has special case for sshfs, that it detects by string-matching.

7. But you can override it, right? Nope. This list is complete and authoritative. Nobody would ever need fuse.s3fs . And if you do, see figure 1.

I can go on for a looooong time.

Re: Linux From Scratch ends SysVinit support

#80

Post by nine_k »

cf100clunk wrote: post #68
nine_k wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certain things should only be taught as a warning. SysV init is one of them.

Back in the day, system run levels were seen as desirable. SysVinit went in on that concept to the max. So, if the concept of run levels isn't clear to the student beforehand, the init system for making it happen would therefore be mystifying and maybe even inscrutible.

Runlevels may be an interesting idea (e.g. the single-user maintenance level). But a bunch of shell scripts, each complex enough to support different commands, sort-of-declare dependencies, etc, is not such a great idea. A Makefile describing runlevels and service dependencies would be a cleaner design (not necessarily a nicer implementation).
Post reply on HN