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

Introducing stronger dependencies on systemd

blogs.gnome.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 179 posts

Re: Introducing stronger dependencies on systemd

#91

Post by pcpuser »

msgodel wrote: post #89
pcpuser wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's so much I disagree with in the beginning but the ending is what actually grinds my gears. You make it sound like systemd manufactured this monoculture somehow. This is also the point I've seen people throw in a comparison to some closed-source org with money to burn and questionable morals. Systemd was chosen by distros and users across different communities because it solves hard problems better than the oth…

All of us paying attention saw how the systemd authors shopped their stuff around issue trackers and mailing lists telling everyone "it's just the way it is now." They absolutely did manufacture the situation. They pushed hard enough doing this that it's resulted in multiple large distros being forked by groups of former maintainers.

Care to share any evidence to back up the tall claim that systemd authors forced their code on anyone?

Re: Introducing stronger dependencies on systemd

#92

Post by pona-a »

growse wrote: post #84
pona-a wrote: post #57

Replying to some sibling comments asking why anyone wouldn't want to use systemd. People want to understand their software as well as it's practically possible. It's not an uncommon preference; worse-is-better was quite successful for a reason. As systemd stands, it's an unauditable mess of tightly-coupled components built to handle any conceivable need. These features create new attack vectors: for instance, systemd…

> Replying to some sibling comments asking why anyone wouldn't want to use systemd. I get why some people don't want to use systemd. That's fine. I really don't understand why this group of people are so passionate about broadcasting this opinion to anyone within earshot. They don't like a piece of software, great! They've got different values! Use something else!

I think you're missing the point. This is a thread about GNOME, a major desktop environment, declaring systemd-userdb as a necessary requirement for its future version, asking the non-systemd community to provide an API-compatible implementation if they want to keep using GNOME.

I personally do not use GNOME, nor am I running a non-systemd system at the moment. This is the first time I wrote a single word about systemd vs other inits on the internet, explicitly because it couldn't be more on-topic.

It's a common false compromise to say you now depend on a component but welcome alternative implementations. In reality, this quickly becomes treadmill for their maintainers, forced to adapt to its quirks so the dependent software even has a chance of working. You can read more about eudev as a more notable example of that dynamic. Projects like Wayland avoid it by having a committee of major implementations vote on proposed specs.

Re: Introducing stronger dependencies on systemd

#94

Post by calcifer »

greatgib wrote: post #87
haileys wrote: post #39

This is a sensible move. systemd is a good piece of software, and foundational Linux infrastructure which by now is very widely deployed. I’ve been doing Linux a long time and my experience is that systemd is much more pleasant to work with than the brittle duct tape and shell script stuff which came before.

Systemd is crap. Works in the main use case, mess up otherwise. It is the windows kernel of linux distributions. Here for example, suddenly systemd will be mandatory despite systemd not caring for multiple session of a single user. Not only not yet implemented but totally that don't need it personally so no one can want to have it. And so again the capability of our linux based distribution will be restricted for som…

> Where it is not the responsibility of the initsystem

systemd is not an init system. It's an umbrella project with many distinct tools and services, only one of which is an init provider.

Re: Introducing stronger dependencies on systemd

#95

Post by airhangerf15 »

bobowzki wrote: post #7
yolkedgeek wrote: post #4

[flagged]

What do you recommend instead?

If you've never tried a tiling window manager, give them a try. I've been on i3 for over a decade and love it. It takes a lot more work to setup, but once you get going, it's an amazing environment.

If you insist on using Wayland, Hyprland is an excellent choice. It's the least broken tiling widow manager for Wayalnd. Sway was the original i3-compatiable replacement and it's still not all that great.

Re: Introducing stronger dependencies on systemd

#96

Post by sunshine-o »

Funny how it doesn't matter anymore.

Gnome has been quite good for more than 10 years but nobody really care because the web browser has become the Desktop Environment. I haven't notices any change in the last 10-15 years.

and power users will use i3, sway or hyprland anyway.

The Gnome people create drama about irrelevant things to get attention like "the danger in theming apps", some minor UI changes or the stronger dependency on systemd but few people care.

What I would worry more about in term of adoption across Unixes is Wayland, it seems the OpenBSD and FreeBSD people are not warm to it.

Re: Introducing stronger dependencies on systemd

#97

Post by gatlin »

pcpuser wrote: post #85
pona-a wrote: post #57

Replying to some sibling comments asking why anyone wouldn't want to use systemd. People want to understand their software as well as it's practically possible. It's not an uncommon preference; worse-is-better was quite successful for a reason. As systemd stands, it's an unauditable mess of tightly-coupled components built to handle any conceivable need. These features create new attack vectors: for instance, systemd…

There's so much I disagree with in the beginning but the ending is what actually grinds my gears. You make it sound like systemd manufactured this monoculture somehow. This is also the point I've seen people throw in a comparison to some closed-source org with money to burn and questionable morals. Systemd was chosen by distros and users across different communities because it solves hard problems better than the oth…

> good tooling

My completely oblique, binary logs disagree. It won because it solved problems companies with money needed solved. There is no indication that it succeeded on merit.

Re: Introducing stronger dependencies on systemd

#98

Post by gatlin »

pcpuser wrote: post #91
msgodel wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of us paying attention saw how the systemd authors shopped their stuff around issue trackers and mailing lists telling everyone "it's just the way it is now." They absolutely did manufacture the situation. They pushed hard enough doing this that it's resulted in multiple large distros being forked by groups of former maintainers.

Care to share any evidence to back up the tall claim that systemd authors forced their code on anyone?

The claim was "shopped around" and if you are going to change people's words do not be surprised when nobody takes your challenge. And preemptively: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Re: Introducing stronger dependencies on systemd

#99

Post by happymellon »

bmn__ wrote: post #82
happymellon wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That reads like someone having a breakdown. Probably going to regret asking, but what is a "redskirt"? > doesn't matter which country you're coming from, your politicial views, your race, your sex, your age, your food menu, whether you wear boots or heels, whether you're furry or fairy, Conan or McKay, comic character, a small furry creature from Alpha Centauri, or just an boring average person. Anybody's welcomed, w…

> > doesn't matter […] your race […] Anybody's welcomed > I wouldn't touch this racist heap. You are clearly unhinged. I don't know how to bring you back to sanity, but as the americans say, one cannot reason someone out of a position they have not reasoned themselves into.

The developer is an anti-vaxxer, uses obvious misogynistic language and is full of dog whistles toward racist language.

I am perfectly fine.

Re: Introducing stronger dependencies on systemd

#100

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

esseph wrote: post #78
probably_wrong wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Monocultures are bad because they eliminate competitive pressure for good design and create single points of failure that affect everyone. For a practical example of this, the XZ backdoor [1] affected liblzma which is (was?) a dependency for libsystemd, and some distributions patched OpenSSH to include libsystemd. As a result, the decision of putting journal file compression functionality directly into your init sy…

If you think that's wild you should hear about kernel vulnerabilities!

Yeah, the Linux monoculture is also bad. In fact, one reason the systemd monoculture is bad is because it enforces the Linux monoculture.
Post reply on HN