4 ms·

BSD handles all of this better than Linux. Text file. Easy. Linux has grown far too "complex". I like how OpenBSD adds modern touches yet keeps the OS free from

BSD handles all of this better than Linux. Text file. Easy. Linux has grown far too "complex". I like how OpenBSD adds modern touches yet keeps the OS free from binary blobs. systemd addresses some issues, but at the cost of complexity. I dislike binary blobs in my systems, hence, my servers run OpenBSD.

chris_wot 10y ago
What binary blobs are you referring to? Aside from the, uh, binaries that run systemd, systemd services, and systemd utilities, the only other thing that is binary that I'm aware of is the binary log file, which can be reconfigured to revert to text if you so desire.
- hiddennetwork 10y ago
  Aside from the binary logs, which are really not a great idea, systemd adds orders of magnitude more complexity to a system that really didn't need it. The init system could have been addressed without something like systemd. I'm old enough to remember and use Unix. Like a lot of IT guys my age, we all tend to think that adding complexity is wrong. This notion of one ring to rule them all mentality is really starting to take effect in IT. Unix-like operating systems are supposed to be non-complex. My example above, of OpenBSD, is true. Maintaining OpenBSD systems is trivial compared to similar Linux systems, and I maintain both. Sadly, I admin a series of CentOS PBX servers that are an absolute pain. A friend runs his on FreeBSD and has less than half the pain points I do. And we're running the same PBX software. I believe in lowest common denominator everytime. Binary anything is bad when alternatives exist. Linux has given itself over to binary blobs in the name of being more attractive to corporate users. Device drivers under Linux are now almost all binary blobs. You will not see this in OpenBSD, for example. The BSD folk reverse engineer the drivers and write their own free drivers -- and they are usually far and away better afterwards. Take the wireless chipset drivers for Ralink. The BSD guys took a 30,000 line driver and rewrote the entire thing in less than 1/3 of the code. That's just the whole attitude between Linux and BSD. Linux is a series of cobbled-together hacks on top of an ever-growing, ever-complex kernel (that really needs legacy crap removed). BSD, on the other hand, is engineered as a single OS with a small collection of pruned base programs. Big difference. If you've ever used BSD, you will know the joy of /etc/rc.conf vs the nightmare of Linux config files that live in myriad locations depending on the distro.
  - chris_wot 10y ago
    I'm afraid you still haven't answered my question. Aside from binary logs, what binary blobs are you referring to in systemd?
    - stephenr 10y ago
      I guess he means systemd being a compiled binary so how exactly a service file is processed is less clear as say with a sysvinit script
      - chris_wot 10y ago
        I can't see how that is the case. Why is this any less clear? I don't think following the Fedora debug guide is any less difficult than troubleshooting a SysV-init script. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_debug_Systemd_problems https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_debug_Systemd_problems It's curious that he says "Binary anything is bad when alternatives exist. Linux has given itself over to binary blobs in the name of being more attractive to corporate users. Device drivers under Linux are now almost all binary blobs." That's not exactly true now, is it? He seems to be implying that there are closed source binaries in the Linux kernel...
        chris_wot 10y ago
        Funny how nobody can answer this question!
        jack9 10y ago
        You already answered the question and acted like it wasn't an answer: "Aside from the, uh, binaries that run systemd, systemd services, and systemd utilities," - yeah, those binary blobs (inherently unstable blobs of logic). http://linoxide.com/linux-how-to/linux-systemd/ http://linoxide.com/linux-how-to/linux-systemd/
        10y ago
- hiddennetwork 10y ago
  systemd is itself a series of something like 70-odd binaries. Why? Why not keep it text-based? It works for others.
  - chris_wot 10y ago
    What text-based things do you think it has replaced? I'm still very curious as to what binary blobs you are referring to though.
  - vidarh 10y ago
    Does it really work for others? Because I've yet to see any init system that provides even a small proportion of the functionality of systemd that I actively rely on.
    - jack9 10y ago
      > Because I've yet to see any init system that provides even a small proportion of the functionality of systemd that I actively rely on You mean all those init systems you relied upon for the decades before systemd...or did you just start using linux recently?

chris_wot 10y ago

What binary blobs are you referring to? Aside from the, uh, binaries that run systemd, systemd services, and systemd utilities, the only other thing that is binary that I'm aware of is the binary log file, which can be reconfigured to revert to text if you so desire.

hiddennetwork 10y ago
Aside from the binary logs, which are really not a great idea, systemd adds orders of magnitude more complexity to a system that really didn't need it. The init system could have been addressed without something like systemd. I'm old enough to remember and use Unix. Like a lot of IT guys my age, we all tend to think that adding complexity is wrong. This notion of one ring to rule them all mentality is really starting to take effect in IT. Unix-like operating systems are supposed to be non-complex. My example above, of OpenBSD, is true. Maintaining OpenBSD systems is trivial compared to similar Linux systems, and I maintain both. Sadly, I admin a series of CentOS PBX servers that are an absolute pain. A friend runs his on FreeBSD and has less than half the pain points I do. And we're running the same PBX software. I believe in lowest common denominator everytime. Binary anything is bad when alternatives exist. Linux has given itself over to binary blobs in the name of being more attractive to corporate users. Device drivers under Linux are now almost all binary blobs. You will not see this in OpenBSD, for example. The BSD folk reverse engineer the drivers and write their own free drivers -- and they are usually far and away better afterwards. Take the wireless chipset drivers for Ralink. The BSD guys took a 30,000 line driver and rewrote the entire thing in less than 1/3 of the code. That's just the whole attitude between Linux and BSD. Linux is a series of cobbled-together hacks on top of an ever-growing, ever-complex kernel (that really needs legacy crap removed). BSD, on the other hand, is engineered as a single OS with a small collection of pruned base programs. Big difference. If you've ever used BSD, you will know the joy of /etc/rc.conf vs the nightmare of Linux config files that live in myriad locations depending on the distro.
- chris_wot 10y ago
  I'm afraid you still haven't answered my question. Aside from binary logs, what binary blobs are you referring to in systemd?
  - stephenr 10y ago
    I guess he means systemd being a compiled binary so how exactly a service file is processed is less clear as say with a sysvinit script
    - chris_wot 10y ago
      I can't see how that is the case. Why is this any less clear? I don't think following the Fedora debug guide is any less difficult than troubleshooting a SysV-init script. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_debug_Systemd_problems https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_debug_Systemd_problems It's curious that he says "Binary anything is bad when alternatives exist. Linux has given itself over to binary blobs in the name of being more attractive to corporate users. Device drivers under Linux are now almost all binary blobs." That's not exactly true now, is it? He seems to be implying that there are closed source binaries in the Linux kernel...
      - chris_wot 10y ago
        Funny how nobody can answer this question!
        jack9 10y ago
        You already answered the question and acted like it wasn't an answer: "Aside from the, uh, binaries that run systemd, systemd services, and systemd utilities," - yeah, those binary blobs (inherently unstable blobs of logic). http://linoxide.com/linux-how-to/linux-systemd/ http://linoxide.com/linux-how-to/linux-systemd/
        10y ago
hiddennetwork 10y ago
systemd is itself a series of something like 70-odd binaries. Why? Why not keep it text-based? It works for others.
- chris_wot 10y ago
  What text-based things do you think it has replaced? I'm still very curious as to what binary blobs you are referring to though.
- vidarh 10y ago
  Does it really work for others? Because I've yet to see any init system that provides even a small proportion of the functionality of systemd that I actively rely on.
  - jack9 10y ago
    > Because I've yet to see any init system that provides even a small proportion of the functionality of systemd that I actively rely on You mean all those init systems you relied upon for the decades before systemd...or did you just start using linux recently?