3 ms·

How has systemd effected you?

by zxcvcxz 10y ago

busterarm 10y ago
It broke a few of my Arch installs. I had to learn a bunch of new tools which didn't improve my work in any way. The only things that it made easier were things that were already easy. More importantly, I think that some of the systemd maintainers have a track record of not really knowing what they're doing, as exemplified by this tmux issue. I have serious worry about running their process as PID 1. Other than that, totally positive effect: It deepened my interest in OS security and hastened my switch to OpenBSD which was probably happening anyway.
- jamespo 10y ago
  Arch is an interesting choice of distro if you value stability
  - busterarm 10y ago
    For me, Arch very rarely delivered "omg nothing works" moments on upgrade for me. The only one that I can think of was the systemd upgrade. For every other breaking change, a fix was either easily apparent or well-documented on the wiki. "Stability" in the sense that OpenBSD provides though is something that I valued more over time of running Arch and my experiences with other things on the side (mainly QNX).
  - qb45 10y ago
    Arch is largely OK. The only troublesome and WTF-ish upgrades I recall were systemd (which I avoided) and symlinking of /bin and /lib to /usr.
TelmoMenezes 10y ago
Systemd created him?
iam-TJ 10y ago
Technically I appreciate much of the systemd design and implementation, but what repeatedly annoys me is when it 'takes over' - replaces - existing tooling and doesn't provide feature parity, resulting in regressions. The one that really annoyed me (and is still present) is when it replaced cryptsetup init scripts but did not implement support for root file-system key-files. For release-upgrades this will result in broken, unbootable, systems - it isn't difficult to imagine how this causes swearing and bad feeling! For new installs it means loss of required functionality, and lost time and productivity exploring and implementing work-arounds to counter the regression and return to the status quo. The reason for the lack of key-file support in systemd-cryptsetup? The purist idealism that key-file support patches will only be accepted if they use the Linux kernel's key-ring API (rather than replicate the existing cryptsetup init script behaviour).
Ace17 10y ago
By making many of my systems totally unbootable after an upgrade?

How has systemd effected you?

by zxcvcxz 10y ago

How has systemd effected you?

It broke a few of my Arch installs. I had to learn a bunch of new tools which didn't improve my work in any way. The only things that it made easier were things that were already easy. More importantly, I think that some of the systemd maintainers have a track record of not really knowing what they're doing, as exemplified by this tmux issue. I have serious worry about running their process as PID 1. Other than that, totally positive effect: It deepened my interest in OS security and hastened my switch to OpenBSD which was probably happening anyway.

jamespo 10y ago
Arch is an interesting choice of distro if you value stability
- busterarm 10y ago
  For me, Arch very rarely delivered "omg nothing works" moments on upgrade for me. The only one that I can think of was the systemd upgrade. For every other breaking change, a fix was either easily apparent or well-documented on the wiki. "Stability" in the sense that OpenBSD provides though is something that I valued more over time of running Arch and my experiences with other things on the side (mainly QNX).
- qb45 10y ago
  Arch is largely OK. The only troublesome and WTF-ish upgrades I recall were systemd (which I avoided) and symlinking of /bin and /lib to /usr.

TelmoMenezes 10y ago

Systemd created him?

iam-TJ 10y ago

Technically I appreciate much of the systemd design and implementation, but what repeatedly annoys me is when it 'takes over' - replaces - existing tooling and doesn't provide feature parity, resulting in regressions. The one that really annoyed me (and is still present) is when it replaced cryptsetup init scripts but did not implement support for root file-system key-files. For release-upgrades this will result in broken, unbootable, systems - it isn't difficult to imagine how this causes swearing and bad feeling! For new installs it means loss of required functionality, and lost time and productivity exploring and implementing work-arounds to counter the regression and return to the status quo. The reason for the lack of key-file support in systemd-cryptsetup? The purist idealism that key-file support patches will only be accepted if they use the Linux kernel's key-ring API (rather than replicate the existing cryptsetup init script behaviour).

Ace17 10y ago

By making many of my systems totally unbootable after an upgrade?