7 ms·

I almost think there should be a divorce. Call it systemdOS and be done with it. At that point every service it subsumes will be seen as a step closer to the

by badsock 10y ago

I almost think there should be a divorce. Call it systemdOS and be done with it. At that point every service it subsumes will be seen as a step closer to the obvious end-goal rather than a point of contention. And the other OS can be something like the Gnome2 fork MATE. It's not a technical thing, it's cultural. The two sides are playing tug-of-war with the same OS, and systemd's winning, but maybe it would be better to have a positive culture around the changes they're making instead of always having people dragging on the rope. Some forks have been good in the past - EGCS/GCC for example.

SwellJoe 10y ago
> Call it systemdOS and be done with it. Every major Linux distro has chosen systemd as their future. I think that means whoever wants something different needs to change their name, rather than every major Linux distro changing theirs. Just as the Gnome 2 fans chose a new name for their future based on that lineage.
- badsock 10y ago
  Fair enough. It just seems like it might be useful to have a symbolic split of some kind, where people choose a camp instead of trying to pull in both directions. Naming can do that.
  - SwellJoe 10y ago
    Devuan is, apparently, a fork of Debian without systemd, so there are seemingly reasonable options for going that path. I, personally, won't miss initscripts, but one of our customers has been begging for a Devuan port of our products, so I guess some folks are excited about it.
- mfukar 10y ago
  > as their future ..and here I was thinking they chose it as an init system.
  - fapjacks 10y ago
    Well, hopefully now you see that it never was just an init system. It is literally the future of Linux in the eyes of its proponents, as it gobbles up more and more crap. And people wonder why there is opposition to systemd!
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- snaky 10y ago
  > Every major Linux distro has chosen systemd as their future Gentoo is a major Linux distro too.
  - SwellJoe 10y ago
    I don't really stay on top of popularity of distros, but I'd be surprised if Gentoo is in the top 10, in terms of usage. But, when I say "major Linux distros", I mean, specifically: RHEL/CentOS, Ubuntu and Debian, as those are clear market leaders on the server (I mostly pay attention to the server space). Fedora, Mint, and maybe Arch comes into the picture for desktop, I guess? SuSE seems to be on the rise again. All of those are systemd, I think. I guess one can argue about what level of popularity makes something a "major Linux distro". I, personally, wouldn't put Gentoo into that category, unless I saw some evidence of dramatic increase in its usage.
  - belorn 10y ago
    Correct me if I am wrong here, but I thought Gentoo user had to make active choices when it came to make, compile and configure an installation, and that Gentoo as a distribution had a hands-off approach when it came to make decisions for the user. Is there a "default" init system, where if the user make no decision they end up with a specific one?
    - pdkl95 10y ago
      https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Comparison_of_init_systems https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Comparison_of_init_systems Gentoo officially uses OpenRC (and eudev), which is what you get if you follow the installation handbook. However, Gentoo also encourages choice and allows many options for init, daemon management, etc, which includes systemd. Other options ( are also available, too, at least unofficially. > if the user makes no decision While OpenRC is the official default, the "compile and setup everything yourself" nature of Gentoo makes this kind of statement somewhat irrelevant. One of the major reasons to use Gentoo is the ability to pick the components you want in your OS so it meets your specific needs. So yes, while there is a default, the concept of having a "default" is less important when you are installing everything manually.
- yedpodtrzitko 10y ago
  If you would tell me "this will just fix & improve init system" then that would a no-brainer. However I feel like the scope of the project has massively changed over time, so people (distros) who agreed with something a year or two ago could have a different opinion nowadays.
  - SwellJoe 10y ago
    > so people (distros) who agreed with something a year or two ago could have a different opinion nowadays. Do you have an example of a distro that feels that way? I only follow Fedora and RHEL/CentOS close enough to know, and they're still quite pro-systemd on all fronts, though there's still some hybrid stuff sticking around for backward compatibility and user comfort (so, a lot of stuff people were used to doing in the past still works the same on systemd-based systems).
    - kasabali 10y ago
      > Do you have an example of a distro that feels that way? Void Linux switched from systemd to runit.
emmelaich 10y ago
Only systemd opponents think it is cultural. Systemd is just fixing things that have been broken for a very long time.
- 2bluesc 10y ago
  > Systemd is just fixing things that have been broken for a very long time. This. I for one don't miss the mess of shell scripts for network management, init, bootloader, cron, etc. I personally think systemd already does 10x better at each of these tasks then the broken scripts have ever done.
  - mfukar 10y ago
    Changing the syntax of scripts managing devices and services is hardly an improvement by itself. Yes there are some ideas which have resulted in more useful tools for administrators (systemd-analyze and friends), along with more predictable behaviour which again helps administrators a lot, but apart from those systemd is just "fixing" things which were never an issue for the desktop user.
    - SwellJoe 10y ago
      "Changing the syntax of scripts managing devices and services is hardly an improvement by itself." That's not what has been done. systemd unit files are not "scripts". They are declarative configuration files, usually orders of magnitude smaller than the initscripts, network scripts, etc. that they replace. The Apache unit file on RHEL7 is ~17 lines long, and it replaced an initscript that was a couple hundred lines long. It is a difference of both degree and kind.
      - makomk 10y ago
        Except that the more complex unit files still rely on shell scripts - they're just split off into separate files in another directory. systemd simplified init scripts by spraying their content over half a dozen or more different files and then only advertising the size of one them.
upofadown 10y ago
> Call it systemdOS and be done with it. I think of systemd as one component in an attempt to create a good desktop environment based on the Linux kernel. Sort of like how Android is an attempt to create a good phone environment based on the Linux kernel. Based on that, I think it makes more sense to come up with a separate name for something like a Gnome/Wayland/Weston/systemd/Linux combination. While we are at it we could come up with a separate name for a Linux based system configured primarily by writing scripts. We should stop pretending that there is some sort of generic combination of things called "Linux".
- mfukar 10y ago
  Android is hardly a component. It's a fork. Systemd should also be a fork, that was the GP's opinion too, wasn't it?
- dasyatidprime 10y ago
  I've been tentatively calling the former FDO/Linux or XDG/Linux, FWIW.
- fnord123 10y ago
  >I think of systemd as one component in an attempt to create a good desktop environment based on the Linux kernel. systemd works on systems as small as embedded systems up to huge hpc systems. It's not just a desktop thing.
  - dozzie 10y ago
    ...for some value of "works".
    - jononor 10y ago
      ...works better than sysvinit, and upstart.
      - dozzie 10y ago
        Except when it doesn't or when it's pain in the ass (embedded systems, or so I hear).

by badsock 10y ago

SwellJoe 10y ago

> Call it systemdOS and be done with it. Every major Linux distro has chosen systemd as their future. I think that means whoever wants something different needs to change their name, rather than every major Linux distro changing theirs. Just as the Gnome 2 fans chose a new name for their future based on that lineage.

badsock 10y ago
Fair enough. It just seems like it might be useful to have a symbolic split of some kind, where people choose a camp instead of trying to pull in both directions. Naming can do that.
- SwellJoe 10y ago
  Devuan is, apparently, a fork of Debian without systemd, so there are seemingly reasonable options for going that path. I, personally, won't miss initscripts, but one of our customers has been begging for a Devuan port of our products, so I guess some folks are excited about it.
mfukar 10y ago
> as their future ..and here I was thinking they chose it as an init system.
- fapjacks 10y ago
  Well, hopefully now you see that it never was just an init system. It is literally the future of Linux in the eyes of its proponents, as it gobbles up more and more crap. And people wonder why there is opposition to systemd!
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
snaky 10y ago
> Every major Linux distro has chosen systemd as their future Gentoo is a major Linux distro too.
- SwellJoe 10y ago
  I don't really stay on top of popularity of distros, but I'd be surprised if Gentoo is in the top 10, in terms of usage. But, when I say "major Linux distros", I mean, specifically: RHEL/CentOS, Ubuntu and Debian, as those are clear market leaders on the server (I mostly pay attention to the server space). Fedora, Mint, and maybe Arch comes into the picture for desktop, I guess? SuSE seems to be on the rise again. All of those are systemd, I think. I guess one can argue about what level of popularity makes something a "major Linux distro". I, personally, wouldn't put Gentoo into that category, unless I saw some evidence of dramatic increase in its usage.
- belorn 10y ago
  Correct me if I am wrong here, but I thought Gentoo user had to make active choices when it came to make, compile and configure an installation, and that Gentoo as a distribution had a hands-off approach when it came to make decisions for the user. Is there a "default" init system, where if the user make no decision they end up with a specific one?
  - pdkl95 10y ago
    https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Comparison_of_init_systems https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Comparison_of_init_systems Gentoo officially uses OpenRC (and eudev), which is what you get if you follow the installation handbook. However, Gentoo also encourages choice and allows many options for init, daemon management, etc, which includes systemd. Other options ( are also available, too, at least unofficially. > if the user makes no decision While OpenRC is the official default, the "compile and setup everything yourself" nature of Gentoo makes this kind of statement somewhat irrelevant. One of the major reasons to use Gentoo is the ability to pick the components you want in your OS so it meets your specific needs. So yes, while there is a default, the concept of having a "default" is less important when you are installing everything manually.
yedpodtrzitko 10y ago
If you would tell me "this will just fix & improve init system" then that would a no-brainer. However I feel like the scope of the project has massively changed over time, so people (distros) who agreed with something a year or two ago could have a different opinion nowadays.
- SwellJoe 10y ago
  > so people (distros) who agreed with something a year or two ago could have a different opinion nowadays. Do you have an example of a distro that feels that way? I only follow Fedora and RHEL/CentOS close enough to know, and they're still quite pro-systemd on all fronts, though there's still some hybrid stuff sticking around for backward compatibility and user comfort (so, a lot of stuff people were used to doing in the past still works the same on systemd-based systems).
  - kasabali 10y ago
    > Do you have an example of a distro that feels that way? Void Linux switched from systemd to runit.

emmelaich 10y ago

Only systemd opponents think it is cultural. Systemd is just fixing things that have been broken for a very long time.

2bluesc 10y ago
> Systemd is just fixing things that have been broken for a very long time. This. I for one don't miss the mess of shell scripts for network management, init, bootloader, cron, etc. I personally think systemd already does 10x better at each of these tasks then the broken scripts have ever done.
- mfukar 10y ago
  Changing the syntax of scripts managing devices and services is hardly an improvement by itself. Yes there are some ideas which have resulted in more useful tools for administrators (systemd-analyze and friends), along with more predictable behaviour which again helps administrators a lot, but apart from those systemd is just "fixing" things which were never an issue for the desktop user.
  - SwellJoe 10y ago
    "Changing the syntax of scripts managing devices and services is hardly an improvement by itself." That's not what has been done. systemd unit files are not "scripts". They are declarative configuration files, usually orders of magnitude smaller than the initscripts, network scripts, etc. that they replace. The Apache unit file on RHEL7 is ~17 lines long, and it replaced an initscript that was a couple hundred lines long. It is a difference of both degree and kind.
    - makomk 10y ago
      Except that the more complex unit files still rely on shell scripts - they're just split off into separate files in another directory. systemd simplified init scripts by spraying their content over half a dozen or more different files and then only advertising the size of one them.

upofadown 10y ago

> Call it systemdOS and be done with it. I think of systemd as one component in an attempt to create a good desktop environment based on the Linux kernel. Sort of like how Android is an attempt to create a good phone environment based on the Linux kernel. Based on that, I think it makes more sense to come up with a separate name for something like a Gnome/Wayland/Weston/systemd/Linux combination. While we are at it we could come up with a separate name for a Linux based system configured primarily by writing scripts. We should stop pretending that there is some sort of generic combination of things called "Linux".

mfukar 10y ago
Android is hardly a component. It's a fork. Systemd should also be a fork, that was the GP's opinion too, wasn't it?
dasyatidprime 10y ago
I've been tentatively calling the former FDO/Linux or XDG/Linux, FWIW.
fnord123 10y ago
>I think of systemd as one component in an attempt to create a good desktop environment based on the Linux kernel. systemd works on systems as small as embedded systems up to huge hpc systems. It's not just a desktop thing.
- dozzie 10y ago
  ...for some value of "works".
  - jononor 10y ago
    ...works better than sysvinit, and upstart.
    - dozzie 10y ago
      Except when it doesn't or when it's pain in the ass (embedded systems, or so I hear).