17 ms·

I would assume this is about systemd. Personally my experience with it has been great - the occasional screw-ups (they did happen - something related to dbus ma

I would assume this is about systemd. Personally my experience with it has been great - the occasional screw-ups (they did happen - something related to dbus made all systemctl commands fail until a reboot) were nothing compared to the time I gained not having to worry about prehistoric initscripts. So while it isn't perfect, it's IMO a step in the right direction, if only by lowering the barrier to entry to actually using and managing the thing. If you are worried about stability then you shouldn't rely on a single machine anyway. Personally I manage systemd screw-ups (though I haven't had one in production yet - all of them were on my personal machines while monkeying around with Archlinux) just like any other hardware failure - by making sure my app/service stays available even if I yank the power cord from the machine.

SwellJoe 9y ago
It seems obvious he is referring to systemd. I like systemd, but Linus hates it when people break userspace, and systemd has broken userspace a lot. Poettering seems to take the advice of "release early and often" to heart and pushes things into widespread usage long before they're quite fully baked. PulseAudio was awful for years, and then it was good and we all stopped complaining about it. systemd was kinda crap for months after it became widespread...a ton of breakage, including in ways that were occasionally dangerous. We're lucky, I guess, that systemd didn't take as long as PulseAudio to stop sucking all the time (systemd still sucks some of the time, but what it replaced sucked a lot, too). So, yeah, you can't break userspace if you want Linus on your team, and systemd has broken userspace now and then.
- asveikau 9y ago
  You seem to exist in a fictional universe where pulseaudio "got good" and doesn't suck. All these years later I have never seen that be the case. I think a much more likely explanation is that desktop Linux is less common since the rise of OS X in the "Unix-like developer machine" market so there are now fewer people noticing it sucks.
  - pcr0 9y ago
    I was one of those developers with an OS X machine who decided to buy a Thinkpad and throw Ubuntu on it. pulseaudio worked out of the box for me and I definitely preferred it over the stunted OS X audio mixer that doesn't even let you define per-application audio.
    - isatty 9y ago
      The MacOS mixer is pretty much the epitome of "just works" even though I agree with you that it doesn't let you control levels per application. However I've been using the MacOS sound system (not just the mixer) for many years through many devices (mics, external dacs, HDMI transports, DP etc) and it has always worked without any problems.
      - pfranz 9y ago
        I don't have much personal experience, but I /often/ hear about OSX users very wary of updating MacOS because of issues with sound equipment. This goes back to Classic. It may have gone away in the past 3-5 years, but the stigma is still there.
  - Rjevski 9y ago
    What were your problems exactly? In my case I used Linux full time from late 2012 to early 2014 and during that time I haven't had a single problem related to it, all while running bleeding edge Archlinux. The only issue was with bluetooth headphones but I'm pretty sure it was more with BlueZ being a pile of garbage than Pulseaudio being bad, given that BlueZ was giving me problems with all sorts of other (non sound) peripherals as well.
    - LukeShu 9y ago
      Are you actually using PulseAudio? Having run Arch (well, Parabola) since 2011, I haven't had any problems with PulseAudio... because I've never installed PulseAudio. Actually, I did have a problem with Wine and lib32-libpulse lagging slightly behind the video (where it's only a fraction of a second off, but enough that it doesn't feel like the words match the faces); and then I figured out how to get Wine to use ALSA, just like everything else.
- throwaway2048 9y ago
  Its nothing to do with "release early and often", its gems like this that they refuse to fix over ridiculous hubris. https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/6237 https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/6237 Its going to end up exactly like glibc under Drepper, where distributions are forced to have a mile of patches because obviously broken shit isn't patched because the maintainers are too arrogant to admit fault.
  - grandinj 9y ago
    I dont see any signs of "refuse to fix" there. I see a calm and reasonable discussion and an acknowledgement that some things need improving. Perhaps they refused to fix it in exactly the way the reporter wanted, but that's a far cry from arrogant refusal.
    - bigbugbag 9y ago
      > yes, it's a feature that we don't permit invalid user names(...) So, yeah, I don't think there's anything to fix in systemd here. I understand this is annoying, but still: the username is clearly not valid. > systemd is not the one coming up with the restrictions on user names, and while some distributions are less restrictive, many do enforce the same restrictions as we do. In order to make systemd unit files portable between systems we'll hence enforce something that resembles more the universally accepted set, rather than accept the most liberal set possible. These are pretty clear "refuse to fix". Though I do agree that this is a poor example to illustrate the point.
    - isatty 9y ago
      What I saw was poettering spouting garbage about what he thinks is an invalid user name (when in reality, it is not and common tools like useradd don't complain about it). As the owner for a critical service like systemd (I don't use it, I prefer openRC on gentoo), he should know better.
      - Steeeve 9y ago
        grrr... your init system should not dictate what a valid username is. Your init system should use whatever users you've configured. I don't like your name. Therefore you get root. How on earth did this init system become so prevalent?
- otterley 9y ago
  How, exactly, has systemd "broken user space"? That's clear neither from the lkml thread, nor here. I'm not sure what this discussion even has to do with systemd; and I'm not even sure how you can "break user space" from a user space program, which init is. You might be able to modify your descendants' environment, but the rules under which that can happen are maintained and enforced by the kernel. It seems to me that if user space programs can do undesirable things, that's the fault of the kernel itself. To be sure, setting those boundaries and rules is one of the kernel's main jobs.
  - SwellJoe 9y ago
    There are a couple of inits in common usage on Linux; systemd is now the most popular and ships standard on the most popular distributions. I can't imagine Linus would be feeling grouchy toward a nearly defunct init (that had been in use mostly unchanged since the 90s), so we're left with systemd. Unless you've got a better idea about what he means? It is not a secret that kernel devs have a love-hate relationship with systemd, and have for years. That's why Linus said, "You all presumably know why." He was speaking with context that everyone on the LKML already knows. First result when I google it (but it's been a thing for a long time and on many fronts with many interesting bugs and arguments): http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTY1MzA http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTY1MzA I don't really subscribe to the "systemd is terrible and is the worst thing that ever happened to Linux" theory, and I'm not trying to be one of those folks that takes every opportunity to make a thread about how much systemd sucks. I like systemd. I mean it when I say that. But, in this case, it seems obvious it is about systemd. I have a hard time coming up with another plausible theory. Edit: Also, now that I'm thinking about Linus and Poettering butting heads...well, that's hilarious. A couple of brilliant assholes arguing is funny to me. I dunno how much it's actually happened (and how much happened through proxies), but still. Funny.
    - microcolonel 9y ago
      But you said specifically "...and systemd has broken userspace a lot." What did you mean by this? It seems like a complete nonsense statement in the context of user space breakage of the form the kernel is responsible for. The main clash between the kernel maintainers and the systemd maintainers was over systemd reading the kernel argv in an error prone way to trigger debug information. Other than that the interactions seem completely minimal. Linus Torvalds uses systemd at work and at home.
- Qantourisc 9y ago
  I still hear a friend complain he often has to restart pulse because sound just stops working for him. And IIRC there is still no way to set the maximum amount of audio-buffer (for the end-user, not from the applications; some people prefer the occasional buffer under-run over the higher delay).
- simias 9y ago
  Well, pulseaudio is still pretty crap as far as I'm concerned. After an update last week Spotify won't work anymore and the sound in Firefox is glitchy. I haven't taken the time to investigate what caused that exactly, and I'm not exactly looking forward to it. Not that I was a huge fan of ALSA either. It always felt a bit over-engineered for my taste. I can understand needing something like that if you want to make professional audio equipment with the Linux kernel but for my desktop use case OSS has always worked just fine for me and it didn't randomly break after an update. As for systemd, it's bearable and it mostly does what it's supposed to do, but it still feels a bit unnecessary and its security track record is not stellar so far. I prefer the simplicity of the BSD init personally.
  - nol13 9y ago
    Seems to have settled down now(?) but firefox audio was def glitchy for a few releases after for me requiring system restarts to get sound back.
gcb0 9y ago
this is all nice when you ignore the tons of bug reports everyone else is getting because you decided to treat your users as testers. why do you think linus is complaining? because he can't get sound to work on his own box or because kernel invalid bugs are over the roof thanks to bogus init?
gaius 9y ago
I would assume this is about systemd. Personally my experience with it has been great - the occasional screw-ups (they did happen - something related to dbus made all systemctl commands fail until a reboot) were nothing compared to the time I gained not having to worry about prehistoric initscripts There is a vast gulf between two communities, people who run Ubuntu Beta for fun on their own PC, and people who run 10,000 RHEL boxes in Prod, and both communities tend to talk "at" each other and misunderstand where the other is coming from. The scenario you describe is something that would make one of the latter community recoil in horror.
- derefr 9y ago
  There's a third, rather small community: the distro-makers, who nearly to a one are—if not in love—at least hold systemd in high regard. It's easy enough to understand their point of view: run through a Linux From Scratch install. You'll have to write your own init system. You'll be duct-taping a lot of things together, and your solution—while it might be something you're "proud of" in some sense—will definitely be lacking in engineering, no matter how much time you as one individual could ever throw at it. After the LFS experience—which is essentially the distro creation experience—coming back to regular (pre-systemd) distros made one feel rather different: it was very easy to see how each distro was, at its core, just someone else's duct-taped-together init system with a pile of hacks accumulated on top. There wasn't any real Engineering; there was no shared knowledge-base of best practices for doing this or that. Each distro was a evolutionary Galapagos island. From the LFS perspective, an init system that exists as its own standalone FOSS project, containing contributions from hundreds of interested parties and battle-tested engineering choices after coming-up-on-a-decade of use in virtually every scenario, is a wonderful thing. systemd is, finally, a reference implementation of an init system "at scale." If you want to build your own init system, you don't have to look at the init systems of 30 different distros to figure out what things each distro just did its own way for no reason, any more (which used to be "most things.") You can just start by looking at "what systemd does", and figure things out from there. Or you can use some systemd components, and some of your own.
  - PuercoPop 9y ago
mfukar 9y ago
systemd has a few nice ideas, and it might be alright for whatever your use case is. I'm working on a product which uses it as its init system, and it's an endless source of problems. Its flaws are deep and unfortunately pervasive.
xaldir 9y ago
As a user, I would agree, systemd kinda just works and it's nice. As a sysadmin however, I hate it so much. Not because I have to learn a new system which is nice, but because it breaks so much things. I had to rewrite scripts that just worked for years, I had to do a bit of black magic to make old software behave on newer distribs and it's just so frustrating. I get it that most of these things were not done in the right way but FFS, don't break my production stuff.
kochthesecond 9y ago
Oh yes, the init to systemd phase was brutal on arch. So many broken systems :(
knorker 9y ago
My problem with systemd is that is seems to have a policy (most certainly a history of actions, and that's really the significant thing) of NOT doing the sane thing, then being called out for it, and then having the systemd people defend not doing the right thing. I can trust someone who makes mistakes. I can't trust someone who refuses to accept that they regularly make mistakes. Nor can I trust their work.
Aardwolf 9y ago
They're not really following the philosophy I expect to see a unix-like OS, so my experience also wasn't great. Like turning logs into a binary format, and then later bugging out on it so when you try to read it with their convoluted command (where cat or less was sufficient in the past) it gave errors on its own mess and refused to display anything. Bugs happen, that's understandable, but simply the fact that they turn logs into a binary format shows their philosophy is different than the one I expect from a unix-like OS. And almost all distros are following them sadly...
- shimon_e 9y ago
  Any reason why we can't have journaldfs?
raverbashing 9y ago
> If you are worried about stability then you shouldn't rely on a single machine anyway. Sorry, this is a complete BS "solution" You don't keep a broken piece of software running then put more redundancy to make it kinda stable. Redundancies are for when things break, not for when they're broken from the start Nobody takes off from a plane with one inoperative engine, both have to be turning, so in case one fails the other one can take over
- digi_owl 9y ago
  Effectively what you are responding to is the ever more prevailing "cloud" mentality, where there is always another instance to spin up in a second if something where to break. http://www.commitstrip.com/en/2015/07/08/true-story-fixing-a-self-ddos/ http://www.commitstrip.com/en/2015/07/08/true-story-fixing-a... And while systemd may have started on the desktop (likely to "solve" the speed of repeated bootups when using a laptop "securely") increasingly its development is dictated by this cloud mentality (as is the development of various distros, as someone basically shouted to my virtual face over at LWN).
btschaegg 9y ago
I could imagine that Linus is also influenced by experiences such as [1][2]. After a couple of issues like that I can imagine that he has his doubts about some of systemd's behavior. [1]: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76935 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76935 [2]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/4/2/420 https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/4/2/420
jankedeen 9y ago
17 years on linux 20+ in *nix. systemd is ! init. There are other ways to introduce an init analog systems bus for functionality without replacing init. Wrongheaded and developed for the wrong reasons in the wrong way.

SwellJoe 9y ago

It seems obvious he is referring to systemd. I like systemd, but Linus hates it when people break userspace, and systemd has broken userspace a lot. Poettering seems to take the advice of "release early and often" to heart and pushes things into widespread usage long before they're quite fully baked. PulseAudio was awful for years, and then it was good and we all stopped complaining about it. systemd was kinda crap for months after it became widespread...a ton of breakage, including in ways that were occasionally dangerous. We're lucky, I guess, that systemd didn't take as long as PulseAudio to stop sucking all the time (systemd still sucks some of the time, but what it replaced sucked a lot, too). So, yeah, you can't break userspace if you want Linus on your team, and systemd has broken userspace now and then.

asveikau 9y ago
You seem to exist in a fictional universe where pulseaudio "got good" and doesn't suck. All these years later I have never seen that be the case. I think a much more likely explanation is that desktop Linux is less common since the rise of OS X in the "Unix-like developer machine" market so there are now fewer people noticing it sucks.
- pcr0 9y ago
  I was one of those developers with an OS X machine who decided to buy a Thinkpad and throw Ubuntu on it. pulseaudio worked out of the box for me and I definitely preferred it over the stunted OS X audio mixer that doesn't even let you define per-application audio.
  - isatty 9y ago
    The MacOS mixer is pretty much the epitome of "just works" even though I agree with you that it doesn't let you control levels per application. However I've been using the MacOS sound system (not just the mixer) for many years through many devices (mics, external dacs, HDMI transports, DP etc) and it has always worked without any problems.
    - pfranz 9y ago
      I don't have much personal experience, but I /often/ hear about OSX users very wary of updating MacOS because of issues with sound equipment. This goes back to Classic. It may have gone away in the past 3-5 years, but the stigma is still there.
- Rjevski 9y ago
  What were your problems exactly? In my case I used Linux full time from late 2012 to early 2014 and during that time I haven't had a single problem related to it, all while running bleeding edge Archlinux. The only issue was with bluetooth headphones but I'm pretty sure it was more with BlueZ being a pile of garbage than Pulseaudio being bad, given that BlueZ was giving me problems with all sorts of other (non sound) peripherals as well.
  - LukeShu 9y ago
    Are you actually using PulseAudio? Having run Arch (well, Parabola) since 2011, I haven't had any problems with PulseAudio... because I've never installed PulseAudio. Actually, I did have a problem with Wine and lib32-libpulse lagging slightly behind the video (where it's only a fraction of a second off, but enough that it doesn't feel like the words match the faces); and then I figured out how to get Wine to use ALSA, just like everything else.
throwaway2048 9y ago
Its nothing to do with "release early and often", its gems like this that they refuse to fix over ridiculous hubris. https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/6237 https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/6237 Its going to end up exactly like glibc under Drepper, where distributions are forced to have a mile of patches because obviously broken shit isn't patched because the maintainers are too arrogant to admit fault.
- grandinj 9y ago
  I dont see any signs of "refuse to fix" there. I see a calm and reasonable discussion and an acknowledgement that some things need improving. Perhaps they refused to fix it in exactly the way the reporter wanted, but that's a far cry from arrogant refusal.
  - bigbugbag 9y ago
    > yes, it's a feature that we don't permit invalid user names(...) So, yeah, I don't think there's anything to fix in systemd here. I understand this is annoying, but still: the username is clearly not valid. > systemd is not the one coming up with the restrictions on user names, and while some distributions are less restrictive, many do enforce the same restrictions as we do. In order to make systemd unit files portable between systems we'll hence enforce something that resembles more the universally accepted set, rather than accept the most liberal set possible. These are pretty clear "refuse to fix". Though I do agree that this is a poor example to illustrate the point.
  - isatty 9y ago
    What I saw was poettering spouting garbage about what he thinks is an invalid user name (when in reality, it is not and common tools like useradd don't complain about it). As the owner for a critical service like systemd (I don't use it, I prefer openRC on gentoo), he should know better.
    - Steeeve 9y ago
      grrr... your init system should not dictate what a valid username is. Your init system should use whatever users you've configured. I don't like your name. Therefore you get root. How on earth did this init system become so prevalent?
otterley 9y ago
How, exactly, has systemd "broken user space"? That's clear neither from the lkml thread, nor here. I'm not sure what this discussion even has to do with systemd; and I'm not even sure how you can "break user space" from a user space program, which init is. You might be able to modify your descendants' environment, but the rules under which that can happen are maintained and enforced by the kernel. It seems to me that if user space programs can do undesirable things, that's the fault of the kernel itself. To be sure, setting those boundaries and rules is one of the kernel's main jobs.
- SwellJoe 9y ago
  There are a couple of inits in common usage on Linux; systemd is now the most popular and ships standard on the most popular distributions. I can't imagine Linus would be feeling grouchy toward a nearly defunct init (that had been in use mostly unchanged since the 90s), so we're left with systemd. Unless you've got a better idea about what he means? It is not a secret that kernel devs have a love-hate relationship with systemd, and have for years. That's why Linus said, "You all presumably know why." He was speaking with context that everyone on the LKML already knows. First result when I google it (but it's been a thing for a long time and on many fronts with many interesting bugs and arguments): http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTY1MzA http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTY1MzA I don't really subscribe to the "systemd is terrible and is the worst thing that ever happened to Linux" theory, and I'm not trying to be one of those folks that takes every opportunity to make a thread about how much systemd sucks. I like systemd. I mean it when I say that. But, in this case, it seems obvious it is about systemd. I have a hard time coming up with another plausible theory. Edit: Also, now that I'm thinking about Linus and Poettering butting heads...well, that's hilarious. A couple of brilliant assholes arguing is funny to me. I dunno how much it's actually happened (and how much happened through proxies), but still. Funny.
  - microcolonel 9y ago
    But you said specifically "...and systemd has broken userspace a lot." What did you mean by this? It seems like a complete nonsense statement in the context of user space breakage of the form the kernel is responsible for. The main clash between the kernel maintainers and the systemd maintainers was over systemd reading the kernel argv in an error prone way to trigger debug information. Other than that the interactions seem completely minimal. Linus Torvalds uses systemd at work and at home.
Qantourisc 9y ago
I still hear a friend complain he often has to restart pulse because sound just stops working for him. And IIRC there is still no way to set the maximum amount of audio-buffer (for the end-user, not from the applications; some people prefer the occasional buffer under-run over the higher delay).
simias 9y ago
Well, pulseaudio is still pretty crap as far as I'm concerned. After an update last week Spotify won't work anymore and the sound in Firefox is glitchy. I haven't taken the time to investigate what caused that exactly, and I'm not exactly looking forward to it. Not that I was a huge fan of ALSA either. It always felt a bit over-engineered for my taste. I can understand needing something like that if you want to make professional audio equipment with the Linux kernel but for my desktop use case OSS has always worked just fine for me and it didn't randomly break after an update. As for systemd, it's bearable and it mostly does what it's supposed to do, but it still feels a bit unnecessary and its security track record is not stellar so far. I prefer the simplicity of the BSD init personally.
- nol13 9y ago
  Seems to have settled down now(?) but firefox audio was def glitchy for a few releases after for me requiring system restarts to get sound back.

gcb0 9y ago

this is all nice when you ignore the tons of bug reports everyone else is getting because you decided to treat your users as testers. why do you think linus is complaining? because he can't get sound to work on his own box or because kernel invalid bugs are over the roof thanks to bogus init?

gaius 9y ago

I would assume this is about systemd. Personally my experience with it has been great - the occasional screw-ups (they did happen - something related to dbus made all systemctl commands fail until a reboot) were nothing compared to the time I gained not having to worry about prehistoric initscripts There is a vast gulf between two communities, people who run Ubuntu Beta for fun on their own PC, and people who run 10,000 RHEL boxes in Prod, and both communities tend to talk "at" each other and misunderstand where the other is coming from. The scenario you describe is something that would make one of the latter community recoil in horror.

derefr 9y ago
There's a third, rather small community: the distro-makers, who nearly to a one are—if not in love—at least hold systemd in high regard. It's easy enough to understand their point of view: run through a Linux From Scratch install. You'll have to write your own init system. You'll be duct-taping a lot of things together, and your solution—while it might be something you're "proud of" in some sense—will definitely be lacking in engineering, no matter how much time you as one individual could ever throw at it. After the LFS experience—which is essentially the distro creation experience—coming back to regular (pre-systemd) distros made one feel rather different: it was very easy to see how each distro was, at its core, just someone else's duct-taped-together init system with a pile of hacks accumulated on top. There wasn't any real Engineering; there was no shared knowledge-base of best practices for doing this or that. Each distro was a evolutionary Galapagos island. From the LFS perspective, an init system that exists as its own standalone FOSS project, containing contributions from hundreds of interested parties and battle-tested engineering choices after coming-up-on-a-decade of use in virtually every scenario, is a wonderful thing. systemd is, finally, a reference implementation of an init system "at scale." If you want to build your own init system, you don't have to look at the init systems of 30 different distros to figure out what things each distro just did its own way for no reason, any more (which used to be "most things.") You can just start by looking at "what systemd does", and figure things out from there. Or you can use some systemd components, and some of your own.
- PuercoPop 9y ago

mfukar 9y ago

systemd has a few nice ideas, and it might be alright for whatever your use case is. I'm working on a product which uses it as its init system, and it's an endless source of problems. Its flaws are deep and unfortunately pervasive.

xaldir 9y ago

As a user, I would agree, systemd kinda just works and it's nice. As a sysadmin however, I hate it so much. Not because I have to learn a new system which is nice, but because it breaks so much things. I had to rewrite scripts that just worked for years, I had to do a bit of black magic to make old software behave on newer distribs and it's just so frustrating. I get it that most of these things were not done in the right way but FFS, don't break my production stuff.

kochthesecond 9y ago

Oh yes, the init to systemd phase was brutal on arch. So many broken systems :(

knorker 9y ago

My problem with systemd is that is seems to have a policy (most certainly a history of actions, and that's really the significant thing) of NOT doing the sane thing, then being called out for it, and then having the systemd people defend not doing the right thing. I can trust someone who makes mistakes. I can't trust someone who refuses to accept that they regularly make mistakes. Nor can I trust their work.

Aardwolf 9y ago

They're not really following the philosophy I expect to see a unix-like OS, so my experience also wasn't great. Like turning logs into a binary format, and then later bugging out on it so when you try to read it with their convoluted command (where cat or less was sufficient in the past) it gave errors on its own mess and refused to display anything. Bugs happen, that's understandable, but simply the fact that they turn logs into a binary format shows their philosophy is different than the one I expect from a unix-like OS. And almost all distros are following them sadly...

shimon_e 9y ago
Any reason why we can't have journaldfs?

raverbashing 9y ago

> If you are worried about stability then you shouldn't rely on a single machine anyway. Sorry, this is a complete BS "solution" You don't keep a broken piece of software running then put more redundancy to make it kinda stable. Redundancies are for when things break, not for when they're broken from the start Nobody takes off from a plane with one inoperative engine, both have to be turning, so in case one fails the other one can take over

digi_owl 9y ago
Effectively what you are responding to is the ever more prevailing "cloud" mentality, where there is always another instance to spin up in a second if something where to break. http://www.commitstrip.com/en/2015/07/08/true-story-fixing-a-self-ddos/ http://www.commitstrip.com/en/2015/07/08/true-story-fixing-a... And while systemd may have started on the desktop (likely to "solve" the speed of repeated bootups when using a laptop "securely") increasingly its development is dictated by this cloud mentality (as is the development of various distros, as someone basically shouted to my virtual face over at LWN).

btschaegg 9y ago

I could imagine that Linus is also influenced by experiences such as [1][2]. After a couple of issues like that I can imagine that he has his doubts about some of systemd's behavior. [1]: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76935 https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76935 [2]: https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/4/2/420 https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/4/2/420

jankedeen 9y ago

17 years on linux 20+ in *nix. systemd is ! init. There are other ways to introduce an init analog systems bus for functionality without replacing init. Wrongheaded and developed for the wrong reasons in the wrong way.