4 ms·

> the Systemd maintainers operated without regards to the community at all Don't act surprised. Those asshats stomped over a whole lot of shit and everyone a

by AckSyn 10y ago

> the Systemd maintainers operated without regards to the community at all Don't act surprised. Those asshats stomped over a whole lot of shit and everyone acts like they're the savior of the init (and a dozen other) systems.

toolz 10y ago
Don't you feel like that's a little melodramatic? I mean they created open source software and forced exactly zero distro's or people to use it. I feel like every time I read about something with systemd someone is acting like there is a gun to their head to use it. If your distro of choice _chose_ to use systemd then your beef is with them forcing it on you...not systemd devs. They made an init system - your distro maintainers are the ones who decided it was the superior choice.
- dingaling 10y ago
  systemd development is led by Red Hat, the $2 billion per annum gorilla in the corner. Third-party software, particularly from commercial vendors, typically uses Red Hat as the base system requirement. So you are correct, no-one holds a gun to distro maintainers' heads and forces systemd. They just find that there's no path forward without either [1] committing resources to keep abreast of the changes that systemd is creating both directly and indirectly or [2] just adopting systemd. Red Hat has won at this point through sheer persistence and clout, so most distros are going with option [2].
gnoway 10y ago
Certainly not everyone. There's a whole host of people who are angry about systemd the project primarily because of the (maybe misunderstood) behavior and communication from systemd the development team. Personally I don't see what everyone is so upset about here. As pointed out by message 15, they've simply changed the default behavior and provided a long-opt setting to restore the old behavior if required; the hundreds or thousands of people who don't closely follow systemd will just be inconvenienced temporarily until they figure out wtf is going on, then they are back in business. And, maybe next time they'll pay closer attention. Anyway I'm sure there will be a systemd-mux soon enough where you can declaratively define your long-running post-logout processes and register them via muxctl or some other existing sd-bus client.
- madmax96 10y ago
  I think people are upset because we're creating a lot of technical debt here. Every new "feature" we add creates a larger learning curve, makes a system that much more complex, and adds more to our maintenance costs. A simple and modular system that allows the user to combine easy-to-understand-parts in a succinct fashion to achieve functionality that __meets their requirements__ usually is superior to monolithic one-size-fits-all solutions. In short, composition generally is preferable to monoliths (after a certain point in complexity.) I think most of us agree to this, and I haven't said anything we all don't already know. We just all disagree where that complexity tipping point is, and that's why some of us hate systemd and some of us don't see the problem.
  - mgbmtl 10y ago
    Speaking of technical debt, I'm not sure if "nohup as a process management scheme" is a good one. Similar to "screen/tmux as a daemon manager". (I'm not saying tmux is bad, I use it all the time. I just don't use it as a daemon manager -- If I understand correctly, they do provide a way to fix screen/tmux.) Systemd generally tries to standardize how to declare common things about a process: - should it be automatically restarted if it does? at what interval? - where are its logs? - how to tell if the process is alive or not? - can we isolate the process? (tmp files) - and now: should this process continue to run even if the user has logged out? And yep, I'm an old schooler who just got tired of dealing with duct tape solutions.
    - dkuntz2 10y ago
      You don't have to use tmux as a daemon manager to find this change annoying. The way we do development where I work is by having two people ssh into a server, and open a joint tmux session. These sessions generally last a week or more, and you generally log out of ssh daily. Or even if you're not pairing, just being disconnected over lunch is a long enough time for SSH to disconnect. Finding ways to overcome that (besides changing the systemd config) are even more duck tape fixes. Automatically terminating processes when a user logs out is a bad default. Sure, leave it as an option because there might be some people that would find it useful, but changing the default without a good reason is bad policy.

by AckSyn 10y ago

toolz 10y ago

Don't you feel like that's a little melodramatic? I mean they created open source software and forced exactly zero distro's or people to use it. I feel like every time I read about something with systemd someone is acting like there is a gun to their head to use it. If your distro of choice _chose_ to use systemd then your beef is with them forcing it on you...not systemd devs. They made an init system - your distro maintainers are the ones who decided it was the superior choice.

dingaling 10y ago
systemd development is led by Red Hat, the $2 billion per annum gorilla in the corner. Third-party software, particularly from commercial vendors, typically uses Red Hat as the base system requirement. So you are correct, no-one holds a gun to distro maintainers' heads and forces systemd. They just find that there's no path forward without either [1] committing resources to keep abreast of the changes that systemd is creating both directly and indirectly or [2] just adopting systemd. Red Hat has won at this point through sheer persistence and clout, so most distros are going with option [2].

gnoway 10y ago

Certainly not everyone. There's a whole host of people who are angry about systemd the project primarily because of the (maybe misunderstood) behavior and communication from systemd the development team. Personally I don't see what everyone is so upset about here. As pointed out by message 15, they've simply changed the default behavior and provided a long-opt setting to restore the old behavior if required; the hundreds or thousands of people who don't closely follow systemd will just be inconvenienced temporarily until they figure out wtf is going on, then they are back in business. And, maybe next time they'll pay closer attention. Anyway I'm sure there will be a systemd-mux soon enough where you can declaratively define your long-running post-logout processes and register them via muxctl or some other existing sd-bus client.

madmax96 10y ago
I think people are upset because we're creating a lot of technical debt here. Every new "feature" we add creates a larger learning curve, makes a system that much more complex, and adds more to our maintenance costs. A simple and modular system that allows the user to combine easy-to-understand-parts in a succinct fashion to achieve functionality that __meets their requirements__ usually is superior to monolithic one-size-fits-all solutions. In short, composition generally is preferable to monoliths (after a certain point in complexity.) I think most of us agree to this, and I haven't said anything we all don't already know. We just all disagree where that complexity tipping point is, and that's why some of us hate systemd and some of us don't see the problem.
- mgbmtl 10y ago
  Speaking of technical debt, I'm not sure if "nohup as a process management scheme" is a good one. Similar to "screen/tmux as a daemon manager". (I'm not saying tmux is bad, I use it all the time. I just don't use it as a daemon manager -- If I understand correctly, they do provide a way to fix screen/tmux.) Systemd generally tries to standardize how to declare common things about a process: - should it be automatically restarted if it does? at what interval? - where are its logs? - how to tell if the process is alive or not? - can we isolate the process? (tmp files) - and now: should this process continue to run even if the user has logged out? And yep, I'm an old schooler who just got tired of dealing with duct tape solutions.
  - dkuntz2 10y ago
    You don't have to use tmux as a daemon manager to find this change annoying. The way we do development where I work is by having two people ssh into a server, and open a joint tmux session. These sessions generally last a week or more, and you generally log out of ssh daily. Or even if you're not pairing, just being disconnected over lunch is a long enough time for SSH to disconnect. Finding ways to overcome that (besides changing the systemd config) are even more duck tape fixes. Automatically terminating processes when a user logs out is a bad default. Sure, leave it as an option because there might be some people that would find it useful, but changing the default without a good reason is bad policy.