4 ms·

I am. Currently I am not aware of any serious effort besides the systemd project to provide a coherent, modern core userland for Linux distros. Previously, eve

I am. Currently I am not aware of any serious effort besides the systemd project to provide a coherent, modern core userland for Linux distros. Previously, every distro built their own init systems and core tools to manage services, leading to meaningless differences in an area where heterogeneity is not a benefit, but hinders progress instead. I don't really have an opinion one way or the other about the rest of the project's tools like networkd or the dhcp server and what have they, but having a working service manager out of the box (which means it actually gets used by default!) has already made my life easier compared to the old sysvinit thing that couldn't even reliably tell you if your services were running or not, never mind anything more advanced.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago
Currently I am not aware of any serious effort besides the systemd project to provide a coherent, modern core userland for Linux distros. There's your problem. You don't even have any defined scope. A "coherent, modern core userland" doesn't actually mean anything concrete - it covers enormous ground that no single package can obey. Modern service managers are plentiful - nosh, s6 and perp probably being the most promising. The "old sysvinit thing" has been replaced many times for over 15 years by now. Just because you didn't notice, well, that's your problem.
- chousuke 11y ago
  You know what? I read the s6 page and found this: http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/ProSystemdAntiSystemd/ http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/ProSystemdAntiSystemd/ I found it rather enlightening and found myself agreeing with pretty much everything. Trying to argue for or against systemd is a waste of time, so I will stop. All the time spent debating would likely be better used just spreading knowledge about your preferred methods so that people can make informed choices when solving their own problems.
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    You should know I'm the author of that, then. Trying to argue for or against systemd is a waste of time, so I will stop. I have to agree.
fortytw2 11y ago
'leading to meaningless differences in an area where heterogeneity is not a benefit, but hinders progress instead.' I would argue the exact opposite is true - there's utterly no reason for 'different' linux distributions to share anything in common other than the part where they all use the same kernel. Trying to have them be the same hinders innovation and invention on the early-userspace - exactly what has kept SysVinit in production for so long. If you want one coherent userland, use a single distro - don't try to say all distros should be the same

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

Currently I am not aware of any serious effort besides the systemd project to provide a coherent, modern core userland for Linux distros. There's your problem. You don't even have any defined scope. A "coherent, modern core userland" doesn't actually mean anything concrete - it covers enormous ground that no single package can obey. Modern service managers are plentiful - nosh, s6 and perp probably being the most promising. The "old sysvinit thing" has been replaced many times for over 15 years by now. Just because you didn't notice, well, that's your problem.

chousuke 11y ago
You know what? I read the s6 page and found this: http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/ProSystemdAntiSystemd/ http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/ProSystemdAntiSystemd/ I found it rather enlightening and found myself agreeing with pretty much everything. Trying to argue for or against systemd is a waste of time, so I will stop. All the time spent debating would likely be better used just spreading knowledge about your preferred methods so that people can make informed choices when solving their own problems.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  You should know I'm the author of that, then. Trying to argue for or against systemd is a waste of time, so I will stop. I have to agree.

fortytw2 11y ago

'leading to meaningless differences in an area where heterogeneity is not a benefit, but hinders progress instead.' I would argue the exact opposite is true - there's utterly no reason for 'different' linux distributions to share anything in common other than the part where they all use the same kernel. Trying to have them be the same hinders innovation and invention on the early-userspace - exactly what has kept SysVinit in production for so long. If you want one coherent userland, use a single distro - don't try to say all distros should be the same