Why Did ArchLinux Embrace Systemd? (2016)
1–10 of 132 posts
Re: Why Did ArchLinux Embrace Systemd? (2016)
#2I wish this kind of opinion would've been spread more widely within the Arch universe (wiki / IRC) so outsiders can understand what we actually gained from switching to systemd.
It still feels like many people hate systemd but the reasons that are presented all sound totally valid from a programmers' perspective.
Re: Why Did ArchLinux Embrace Systemd? (2016)
#3> What most systemd critics consider "bloat", I consider necessary complexity to solve a complex problem generically.
As a distro and philosophy, Archlinux was bound to adopt systemd eventually. e.g. Maintaining you're own init system/scripts is not KISS. Creating a custom init file to adapt 90% of software from systemd to another init system is not KISS.
Re: Why Did ArchLinux Embrace Systemd? (2016)
#4(2016)
Re: Why Did ArchLinux Embrace Systemd? (2016)
#5Looking back, I still don't get all the hatred that SystemD got (and sometimes is still getting). A part from some nice-to-have missing niche features (I'm looking at you, retries management with one-shots), it Just Works™ for the vast majority of use cases, just like PulseAudio does. The fact is that the minority which indeed have problems is very vocal because those problems come from complex corner-cases that only a a very tech-savvy user could generate in the first place.
Re: Why Did ArchLinux Embrace Systemd? (2016)
#6I wish this kind of opinion would've been spread more widely within the Arch universe (wiki / IRC) so outsiders can understand what we actually gained from switching to systemd. It still feels like many people hate systemd but the reasons that are presented all sound totally valid from a programmers' perspective.
These reasons are valid; I think the main reason so many people hate systemd is how all-encompasing it has become.
Prior to systemd, the lack of a standard init/rc/service monitoring system meant that you could pick and choose 3 different solutions for those 3 problems. systemd is pushing for unifying not just those 3, but other systems too (gummiboot, consolekit, udev). As more software becomes designed to work just with the systemd ecosystem, more people who have love for one of the systems that has been subsumed will feel forced to switch.
Say you have a favorite fork. You eat lunch with it everyday. Now at your favorite restaurant for takeout, the manager says "We switched salad dressings, and the new dressing line isn't compatible with that fork, you'll need to use this one instead." The fork that the manager hands you may be perfectly fine (better in some ways, worse in others than your favorite fork), but it's not your fork. So you sadly stop going to that restaurant. But then you notice something: more and more restaurants are switching salad dressing suppliers, so now you have to either give up your favorite fork, or use only salads you make yourself. You're probably going to be mad at the salad dressing company.
Re: Why Did ArchLinux Embrace Systemd? (2016)
#7Looking back, I still don't get all the hatred that SystemD got (and sometimes is still getting). A part from some nice-to-have missing niche features (I'm looking at you, retries management with one-shots), it Just Works™ for the vast majority of use cases, just like PulseAudio does. The fact is that the minority which indeed have problems is very vocal because those problems come from complex corner-cases that only…
I think ultimately a lot of the systemd hate is just fear of change and not wanting to give up an init system they are famiiliar with.
Re: Why Did ArchLinux Embrace Systemd? (2016)
#8Looking back, I still don't get all the hatred that SystemD got (and sometimes is still getting). A part from some nice-to-have missing niche features (I'm looking at you, retries management with one-shots), it Just Works™ for the vast majority of use cases, just like PulseAudio does. The fact is that the minority which indeed have problems is very vocal because those problems come from complex corner-cases that only…
I think ultimately a lot of the systemd hate is just fear of change and not wanting to give up an init system they are famiiliar with.
If we're not afraid of change, Let's change away from systemd.
Re: Why Did ArchLinux Embrace Systemd? (2016)
#9Looking back, I still don't get all the hatred that SystemD got (and sometimes is still getting). A part from some nice-to-have missing niche features (I'm looking at you, retries management with one-shots), it Just Works™ for the vast majority of use cases, just like PulseAudio does. The fact is that the minority which indeed have problems is very vocal because those problems come from complex corner-cases that only…
The problem is when "It just works" doesnt, it's an undebuggable, un-understandable, documentationless kluge with binary logs.
I had it silently take over my DNS . I even have the 'official' way check-boxed to not override DNS settings in Network Manager. Does so anyway. I even removed the symlink from /etc/resolv.conf and made it root:root . SystemD changed it next reboot.
Re: Why Did ArchLinux Embrace Systemd? (2016)
#10Looking back, I still don't get all the hatred that SystemD got (and sometimes is still getting). A part from some nice-to-have missing niche features (I'm looking at you, retries management with one-shots), it Just Works™ for the vast majority of use cases, just like PulseAudio does. The fact is that the minority which indeed have problems is very vocal because those problems come from complex corner-cases that only…
I think ultimately a lot of the systemd hate is just fear of change and not wanting to give up an init system they are famiiliar with.
For me it was the scope creep. Systemd is turning "init" into a framework of all the vulnerable and bad ideas that Microsoft moved away from after Win95/XP. binfmt mount, intercepting and changing the behavior of DNS, polkit implementation, changing user authentication, so much more than I could put here. There are many desktop concepts being shimmed into servers that are simply not appropriate for a lean mean web machine.
The good bits that systemd brought into the mainstream such as cgroups and lxc do not require systemd. They can be implemented independently. The watchdog timers and unit files were not a new concept either and did not require systemd.