3 ms·

Systemd has undeniably brought some good things to Linux. It's much faster and less buggy than the mess SysV init was. But the monolithic design is probably a

by nextos 11y ago

Systemd has undeniably brought some good things to Linux. It's much faster and less buggy than the mess SysV init was. But the monolithic design is probably a hefty price to pay. However, systemd units definitions are declarative, so it's doable to replace it with something else while keeping compatibility. The scary thing is Poettering's new aim, package managers which are at the core of what makes Linux good.

pmoriarty 11y ago
Less buggy? See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11008449 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11008449
- nextos 11y ago
  Yes, I know, and that's terrible. But SysV init was flawed by design as it didn't prevent e.g. race conditions between services.
  - pmoriarty 11y ago
    So systemd is not flawed by design?
    - nextos 11y ago
      It is, but it doesn't suffer from some SysV issues. It brings other issues of its own [1], and it is at odds with the Unix philosophy. [1] http://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2015/10/11/0/ http://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2015/10/11/0/
- pritambaral 11y ago
  The mounting of efivarfs has nothing to do with systemd. efivarfs is provided by the kernel and is intended to be used by the userspace read-write. Not to mention that it is a hardware issue if clearing efi vars renders a board un-POST-able.
digi_owl 11y ago
> Systemd has undeniably brought some good things to Linux. It's much faster and less buggy than the mess SysV init was. http://without-systemd.org/wiki/index.php/Init http://without-systemd.org/wiki/index.php/Init Take your pick. Most of them likely predate systemd by up to a decade. Never mind that a lot of the "mess" of sysv could have been avoided by punting the boilerplate into its own script file that the various services files could import. Recently i find myself wondering if RH have some kind of inferiority complex vis a vis Solaris. After all, the latter was a "true" descendant of the one true Unix...

by nextos 11y ago

pmoriarty 11y ago

Less buggy? See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11008449 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11008449

nextos 11y ago
Yes, I know, and that's terrible. But SysV init was flawed by design as it didn't prevent e.g. race conditions between services.
- pmoriarty 11y ago
  So systemd is not flawed by design?
  - nextos 11y ago
    It is, but it doesn't suffer from some SysV issues. It brings other issues of its own [1], and it is at odds with the Unix philosophy. [1] http://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2015/10/11/0/ http://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2015/10/11/0/
pritambaral 11y ago
The mounting of efivarfs has nothing to do with systemd. efivarfs is provided by the kernel and is intended to be used by the userspace read-write. Not to mention that it is a hardware issue if clearing efi vars renders a board un-POST-able.

digi_owl 11y ago

> Systemd has undeniably brought some good things to Linux. It's much faster and less buggy than the mess SysV init was. http://without-systemd.org/wiki/index.php/Init http://without-systemd.org/wiki/index.php/Init Take your pick. Most of them likely predate systemd by up to a decade. Never mind that a lot of the "mess" of sysv could have been avoided by punting the boilerplate into its own script file that the various services files could import. Recently i find myself wondering if RH have some kind of inferiority complex vis a vis Solaris. After all, the latter was a "true" descendant of the one true Unix...