5 ms·

I think the systemd complaints can essentially be reduced to "my init system now knows about cgroups, sockets, dbus, [and other things that didn't used to exist

I think the systemd complaints can essentially be reduced to "my init system now knows about cgroups, sockets, dbus, [and other things that didn't used to exist]". I haven't heard anyone offer a replacement that accounts for these features while maintaining "the Unix way".

pdkl95 10y ago
None of those feature require systemd. > cgroups Works fine on my Gentoo (OpenRC) desktop. This meme that systemd is necessary for cgroups is simply incorrect. > sockets We stopped using xinetd a loooooong time ago. If you want to use a central point of failure, that's your business. > dbus Isn't necessary in the init process, though you're free to use it if you wish. > didn't used to exist Such as? > replacement for these features The replacement in some cases should be "nothing". You're trying to frame the conversation in a way that presumes features like cgroups or "socket activation" are desired features. The entire point of this "debate" is that you shouldn't be tying extra features to the init process. There are a wide variety of systems in the Linux ecosystem, and there is no one-size-fits-all solution. If you want to run a heavyweight, opinionated, monolithic init like systemd, that's fine. If it makes your life easier, that's great. Just remember that other people have different requirements.
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  Downvote brigades on factually correct posts you happen not to agree with aren't cricket.
  - TheyW0ntL1sten 10y ago
    Except that they are on this site and have been so I quit using a single account to ever post anything. If you are actually a contrarian good luck ever even getting to the point where you can downvote other posts.
    - dredmorbius 10y ago
      I do all right. State my piece, supply evidence, and avoid idiotic fights. There's always someone wrong on the Internet. #386.
- tomjakubowski 10y ago
  "foo knows about X, Y, and Z" doesn't mean the same thing as "foo is required for X, Y, and Z". > > replacement for these features Did GP edit their comment? The quotes and arguments you're arguing with aren't present in it. > We stopped using xinetd a loooooong time ago. If you want to use a central point of failure, that's your business. An init system that groks socket activation yields more benefits than just lazy service startup. Services which communicate over a socket can be more loosely coupled, and a service need not be a traditional "forking daemon" for dependent services to start up at the correct time (since , say, the dependency's UNIX domain socket is already created, they can all start in parallel). edit: I edited the last paragraph in 20 minutes after posting.
- vidarh 10y ago
  > Works fine on my Gentoo (OpenRC) desktop. This meme that systemd is necessary for cgroups is simply incorrect. That's not what it's about. The point of cgroups integration in systemd is that it allows systemd to precisely track the processes started under it, which means that e.g. applications where things like double-forking or similar happens can still be completely stopped by systemd even if the parent process des. > You're trying to frame the conversation in a way that presumes features like cgroups or "socket activation" are desired features. They are to me. They massively improves things vs. sysvinit. > The entire point of this "debate" is that you shouldn't be tying extra features to the init process. The entire starting point for systemd is that traditional sysvinit is woefully lacking in the functionality required to build reliable systems. And when you start trying to cobble together something on top of it, it quickly becomes clear that it is not easy. E.g. try to build a reliable process manager outside of pid 1. You still need process restarting functionality in pid 1 for when your process manager dies. What if it fails to restart? How are you going to log those failures reliably? You end up duplicating a lot of functionality of a process manager in pid 1 if you want a reliable system even if you run a separate process manager outside of pid 1. There are parts of the systemd design I don't agree with, and I think they'd benefit from splitting out various components from the project, not least for "political" reasons. But the design for the core parts of systemd-the-init-system largely follow on from a very limited set of core requirements of being able to reliably start, stop and keep services running and reliably log data from them. These are requirements that sysvinit basically throws it hands up at and says "not my table", while by owning pid 1 they make it basically impossible to meet them.
  - pdkl95 10y ago
    > The point of cgroups integration in systemd I know why systemd uses cgroups. I was addressing the myth that systemd is required to use cgroups. > They are to me. That's nice. You should use systemd if its features satisfy your requirements better than the other options. Other people have different requirements. Is this concept difficult to understand? We don't want the same features, for a variety of reasons. Disagreement is fine, but systemd advocates often seem to want a monoculture. > the functionality required to build reliable systems That's your opinion, which you're entitled to. I disagree, as I've never had problems like you're describing. I value stability a very strongly, so I consider the methods that worked fine over the past 20+ years. > requirements That's the framing I was talking about. There is more than one way to design a stable system, and your requirement list is only one of those methods. Some of those requirements I consider misfeatures that cause problems, but it's fine if you disagree. > impossible to meet them Then use systemd or some other solution that solves your needs. Is it so hard to understand that we can choose different software?
dredmorbius 10y ago
Speaking for your opposition whilst misrepresenting their arguments is very dirty pool. There are numerous long-term expert users and developers of Linux who've spoken against systemd, its design, its behavior, and its developers. Including Linus Torvalds, Alan Cox, Ted T'so, and Patrick Volkerding (That's the original developer of Linux, the long-time second in command, the lead filesystem developer, and the Slackware distro's maintainer -- the oldest extant linux distro.) Mark Shuttleworth, Eric Raymond, and Ian Jackson are notable other critics. For actual arguments against systemd: http://without-systemd.org/wiki/index.php/Arguments_against_systemd http://without-systemd.org/wiki/index.php/Arguments_against_... https://igurublog.wordpress.com/2014/04/03/tso-and-linus-and-the-impotent-rage-against-systemd/ https://igurublog.wordpress.com/2014/04/03/tso-and-linus-and... The laptop vs server divide: http://www.infoworld.com/article/2837182/linux/back-into-linux-systemd-wars.html http://www.infoworld.com/article/2837182/linux/back-into-lin... Bad design and bad attitude. One or the other might be survivable. Both are likely not. http://www.infoworld.com/article/2608798/data-center/systemd--harbinger-of-the-linux-apocalypse.html?page=2 http://www.infoworld.com/article/2608798/data-center/systemd... Uselessd's observations on misrepresentations by systemd advocates: http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/ProSystemdAntiSystemd/ http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/ProSystemdAntiSystemd/ Five troubles: http://www.draketo.de/light/english/top-5-systemd-troubles http://www.draketo.de/light/english/top-5-systemd-troubles LWN on Debian's debates: https://lwn.net/Articles/452865/ https://lwn.net/Articles/452865/ Wikipedia on Systemd's controversy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemd#History_and_controversy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemd#History_and_controve...
- jackyb 10y ago
  Could you point to where Linus said he doesn't like the design of systemd? AFAIK he's only disliked the binary logging (perhaps among a few other small things) but he liked it overall.
  - striking 10y ago
    > I don't actually have any particularly strong opinions on systemd itself. I've had issues with some of the core developers that I think are much too cavalier about bugs and compatibility, and I think some of the design details are insane (I dislike the binary logs, for example), but those are details, not big issues. [1] or > I have to say, I don't really get the hatred of systemd. I think it improves a lot on the state of init, and no, I don't see myself getting into that whole area. > Yeah, it may have a few odd corners here and there, and I'm sure you'll find things to despise. That happens in every project. I'm not a huge fan of the binary logging, for example. But that's just an example. I much prefer systemd's infrastructure for starting services over traditional init, and I think that's a much bigger design decision. > Yeah, I've had some personality issues with some of the maintainers, but that's about how you handle bug reports and accept blame (or not) for when things go wrong. If people thought that meant that I dislike systemd, I will have to disappoint you guys. [2] Both a quick Google away. To sum it up: Linus is okay with systemd. He just doesn't like its maintainers because they're straight up primadonnas. [3] 1: http://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-and-others-on-linuxs-systemd/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-and-others-on-li... 2: https://linux.slashdot.org/story/15/06/30/0058243/interviews-linus-torvalds-answers-your-question https://linux.slashdot.org/story/15/06/30/0058243/interviews... 3: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/04/05/torvalds_sievers_dust_up/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/04/05/torvalds_sievers_dus...
asiekierka 10y ago
One of the bigger arguments is also "it only works on Linux, what about BSDs, OS X, etc.?"
- JdeBP 10y ago
  ... which is food for thought for the Ubuntu world, now it has Ubuntu on BSD and Ubuntu on Windows NT in addition to Ubuntu on Linux. * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11415985 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11415985 * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11416376 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11416376 * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11326457 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11326457
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    Ubuntu and Debian. I _think_ Gentoo might fall under this as well, though I'd have to check. But yes.
- jabl 10y ago
  > One of the bigger arguments is also "it only works on Linux, what about BSDs, OS X, etc.?" In what way is that a "big argument"? BSD has their own rc-thing (not sysv init), OS X has launchd (not sysv init, shares many similarities with systemd actually, such as socket activation), Solaris has SMF (again, not sysv init), etc. Apart from a bunch of non-mainstream Linux distros sticking with sysv init, who else is actually using it?
  - Grishnakh 10y ago
    No one. That's why this is such a stupid argument. BSD and OSX and Solaris and other Unixes have been doing their own thing for ages, and none of them worried about being compatible with other competing Unixes. But somehow Linux distros are wrong to do their own thing (collectively), and should be worried about *BSD and OSX? It makes no sense.

pdkl95 10y ago

None of those feature require systemd. > cgroups Works fine on my Gentoo (OpenRC) desktop. This meme that systemd is necessary for cgroups is simply incorrect. > sockets We stopped using xinetd a loooooong time ago. If you want to use a central point of failure, that's your business. > dbus Isn't necessary in the init process, though you're free to use it if you wish. > didn't used to exist Such as? > replacement for these features The replacement in some cases should be "nothing". You're trying to frame the conversation in a way that presumes features like cgroups or "socket activation" are desired features. The entire point of this "debate" is that you shouldn't be tying extra features to the init process. There are a wide variety of systems in the Linux ecosystem, and there is no one-size-fits-all solution. If you want to run a heavyweight, opinionated, monolithic init like systemd, that's fine. If it makes your life easier, that's great. Just remember that other people have different requirements.

dredmorbius 10y ago
Downvote brigades on factually correct posts you happen not to agree with aren't cricket.
- TheyW0ntL1sten 10y ago
  Except that they are on this site and have been so I quit using a single account to ever post anything. If you are actually a contrarian good luck ever even getting to the point where you can downvote other posts.
  - dredmorbius 10y ago
    I do all right. State my piece, supply evidence, and avoid idiotic fights. There's always someone wrong on the Internet. #386.
tomjakubowski 10y ago
"foo knows about X, Y, and Z" doesn't mean the same thing as "foo is required for X, Y, and Z". > > replacement for these features Did GP edit their comment? The quotes and arguments you're arguing with aren't present in it. > We stopped using xinetd a loooooong time ago. If you want to use a central point of failure, that's your business. An init system that groks socket activation yields more benefits than just lazy service startup. Services which communicate over a socket can be more loosely coupled, and a service need not be a traditional "forking daemon" for dependent services to start up at the correct time (since , say, the dependency's UNIX domain socket is already created, they can all start in parallel). edit: I edited the last paragraph in 20 minutes after posting.
vidarh 10y ago
> Works fine on my Gentoo (OpenRC) desktop. This meme that systemd is necessary for cgroups is simply incorrect. That's not what it's about. The point of cgroups integration in systemd is that it allows systemd to precisely track the processes started under it, which means that e.g. applications where things like double-forking or similar happens can still be completely stopped by systemd even if the parent process des. > You're trying to frame the conversation in a way that presumes features like cgroups or "socket activation" are desired features. They are to me. They massively improves things vs. sysvinit. > The entire point of this "debate" is that you shouldn't be tying extra features to the init process. The entire starting point for systemd is that traditional sysvinit is woefully lacking in the functionality required to build reliable systems. And when you start trying to cobble together something on top of it, it quickly becomes clear that it is not easy. E.g. try to build a reliable process manager outside of pid 1. You still need process restarting functionality in pid 1 for when your process manager dies. What if it fails to restart? How are you going to log those failures reliably? You end up duplicating a lot of functionality of a process manager in pid 1 if you want a reliable system even if you run a separate process manager outside of pid 1. There are parts of the systemd design I don't agree with, and I think they'd benefit from splitting out various components from the project, not least for "political" reasons. But the design for the core parts of systemd-the-init-system largely follow on from a very limited set of core requirements of being able to reliably start, stop and keep services running and reliably log data from them. These are requirements that sysvinit basically throws it hands up at and says "not my table", while by owning pid 1 they make it basically impossible to meet them.
- pdkl95 10y ago
  > The point of cgroups integration in systemd I know why systemd uses cgroups. I was addressing the myth that systemd is required to use cgroups. > They are to me. That's nice. You should use systemd if its features satisfy your requirements better than the other options. Other people have different requirements. Is this concept difficult to understand? We don't want the same features, for a variety of reasons. Disagreement is fine, but systemd advocates often seem to want a monoculture. > the functionality required to build reliable systems That's your opinion, which you're entitled to. I disagree, as I've never had problems like you're describing. I value stability a very strongly, so I consider the methods that worked fine over the past 20+ years. > requirements That's the framing I was talking about. There is more than one way to design a stable system, and your requirement list is only one of those methods. Some of those requirements I consider misfeatures that cause problems, but it's fine if you disagree. > impossible to meet them Then use systemd or some other solution that solves your needs. Is it so hard to understand that we can choose different software?

dredmorbius 10y ago

Speaking for your opposition whilst misrepresenting their arguments is very dirty pool. There are numerous long-term expert users and developers of Linux who've spoken against systemd, its design, its behavior, and its developers. Including Linus Torvalds, Alan Cox, Ted T'so, and Patrick Volkerding (That's the original developer of Linux, the long-time second in command, the lead filesystem developer, and the Slackware distro's maintainer -- the oldest extant linux distro.) Mark Shuttleworth, Eric Raymond, and Ian Jackson are notable other critics. For actual arguments against systemd: http://without-systemd.org/wiki/index.php/Arguments_against_systemd http://without-systemd.org/wiki/index.php/Arguments_against_... https://igurublog.wordpress.com/2014/04/03/tso-and-linus-and-the-impotent-rage-against-systemd/ https://igurublog.wordpress.com/2014/04/03/tso-and-linus-and... The laptop vs server divide: http://www.infoworld.com/article/2837182/linux/back-into-linux-systemd-wars.html http://www.infoworld.com/article/2837182/linux/back-into-lin... Bad design and bad attitude. One or the other might be survivable. Both are likely not. http://www.infoworld.com/article/2608798/data-center/systemd--harbinger-of-the-linux-apocalypse.html?page=2 http://www.infoworld.com/article/2608798/data-center/systemd... Uselessd's observations on misrepresentations by systemd advocates: http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/ProSystemdAntiSystemd/ http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/ProSystemdAntiSystemd/ Five troubles: http://www.draketo.de/light/english/top-5-systemd-troubles http://www.draketo.de/light/english/top-5-systemd-troubles LWN on Debian's debates: https://lwn.net/Articles/452865/ https://lwn.net/Articles/452865/ Wikipedia on Systemd's controversy: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemd#History_and_controversy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemd#History_and_controve...

jackyb 10y ago
Could you point to where Linus said he doesn't like the design of systemd? AFAIK he's only disliked the binary logging (perhaps among a few other small things) but he liked it overall.
- striking 10y ago
  > I don't actually have any particularly strong opinions on systemd itself. I've had issues with some of the core developers that I think are much too cavalier about bugs and compatibility, and I think some of the design details are insane (I dislike the binary logs, for example), but those are details, not big issues. [1] or > I have to say, I don't really get the hatred of systemd. I think it improves a lot on the state of init, and no, I don't see myself getting into that whole area. > Yeah, it may have a few odd corners here and there, and I'm sure you'll find things to despise. That happens in every project. I'm not a huge fan of the binary logging, for example. But that's just an example. I much prefer systemd's infrastructure for starting services over traditional init, and I think that's a much bigger design decision. > Yeah, I've had some personality issues with some of the maintainers, but that's about how you handle bug reports and accept blame (or not) for when things go wrong. If people thought that meant that I dislike systemd, I will have to disappoint you guys. [2] Both a quick Google away. To sum it up: Linus is okay with systemd. He just doesn't like its maintainers because they're straight up primadonnas. [3] 1: http://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-and-others-on-linuxs-systemd/ http://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-and-others-on-li... 2: https://linux.slashdot.org/story/15/06/30/0058243/interviews-linus-torvalds-answers-your-question https://linux.slashdot.org/story/15/06/30/0058243/interviews... 3: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/04/05/torvalds_sievers_dust_up/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/04/05/torvalds_sievers_dus...

asiekierka 10y ago

One of the bigger arguments is also "it only works on Linux, what about BSDs, OS X, etc.?"

JdeBP 10y ago
... which is food for thought for the Ubuntu world, now it has Ubuntu on BSD and Ubuntu on Windows NT in addition to Ubuntu on Linux. * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11415985 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11415985 * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11416376 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11416376 * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11326457 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11326457
- dredmorbius 10y ago
  Ubuntu and Debian. I _think_ Gentoo might fall under this as well, though I'd have to check. But yes.
jabl 10y ago
> One of the bigger arguments is also "it only works on Linux, what about BSDs, OS X, etc.?" In what way is that a "big argument"? BSD has their own rc-thing (not sysv init), OS X has launchd (not sysv init, shares many similarities with systemd actually, such as socket activation), Solaris has SMF (again, not sysv init), etc. Apart from a bunch of non-mainstream Linux distros sticking with sysv init, who else is actually using it?
- Grishnakh 10y ago
  No one. That's why this is such a stupid argument. BSD and OSX and Solaris and other Unixes have been doing their own thing for ages, and none of them worried about being compatible with other competing Unixes. But somehow Linux distros are wrong to do their own thing (collectively), and should be worried about *BSD and OSX? It makes no sense.