5 ms·

I appreciate that they named their release after a no longer suitable character encoding. It does seem like a lot of trouble to go to to troll the systemd hater

I appreciate that they named their release after a no longer suitable character encoding. It does seem like a lot of trouble to go to to troll the systemd haters though.

gsich 8y ago
compare this to sysvinit, a no longer suitable init process.
- sverige 8y ago
  I have yet to hear the argument that convinces me sysvinit (or openrc or runit) was "no longer suitable." In need of updating and revision? Sure. So broken that a completely new init that swallowed up a bunch of other processes and services was the best answer? Hardly. Systemd was initially sold as providing faster boot times. Objections to its cancerous spread to other services beyond init were dismissed without providing any good reasons for why it was necessary or even desirable beyond "we're doing it, quit complaining." The changeover at Debian was handled so poorly and with such rancor that many from there still have a bad taste in their mouths. Devuan was one response to that, and a good one. Artix was the response to Arch adopting systemd. Slackware and Gentoo and other older distros have stayed away from it. And as another commenter noted, lots of people have abandoned Linux for the BSDs. The systemd fallout is demonstrating something I always thought was the weakest part of Linux compared to the BSDs, which is that the Linux userland is developed completely independently of the kernel. People do whatever the fuck they want, and frequently the relationships seem to be hostile. I don't think systemd really solves that problem, either, but rather makes it much more complex and fragile. Hopefully the ecosystem will continue to support non-systemd distros in the long term.
  - vbernat 8y ago
    > Systemd was initially sold as providing faster boot times. Systemd was not about speed. Speed is a side-effect of correctly handling ordering. See http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.
    - dozzie 8y ago
      Ah yes, systemd did promise the correct handling of start ordering (i.e. socket activation). Though this never happened in practice, you still need to manually specify dependencies in unit files, barring the very few daemons.
  - iforgotpassword 8y ago
    The init process is faster because they have by far the cleanest and most efficient way of managing and ordering dependencies. Everything else that systemd brings is questionable to say the least. Combine that with a project founder with shitty personality and you get what systemd is today.
  - badsectoracula 8y ago
    > The systemd fallout is demonstrating something I always thought was the weakest part of Linux compared to the BSDs, which is that the Linux userland is developed completely independently of the kernel. People do whatever the fuck they want, and frequently the relationships seem to be hostile. TBH i think this is its biggest strength because it makes easier for people to switch components that they dislike. After all, you can still use another init system, audio server, desktop environment, shell and other pieces of the userland if you dislike the defaults without having to change the entire OS. On the other hand with BSDs if you dislike something you have to switch to a fork that affects everything.
sanxiyn 8y ago
Devuan is serving a need. It is not trolling.
- jdoss 8y ago
  What exact need?
  - sanxiyn 8y ago
    A need to run Debian system without systemd.
    - jhkaghjkga 8y ago
      That need is already fulfilled by Debian? Just install sysvinit. (edit:) Also consider that if Debian would stop supporting sysvinit, a distribution adding support for it again would be a real effort compared to just installing a different init system by default. Some desktop environments might want systemd-logind+systemd-shim, but that's really not different from installing systemd-elogind in Devuan...

I appreciate that they named their release after a no longer suitable character encoding. It does seem like a lot of trouble to go to to troll the systemd haters though.

gsich 8y ago

compare this to sysvinit, a no longer suitable init process.

sverige 8y ago
I have yet to hear the argument that convinces me sysvinit (or openrc or runit) was "no longer suitable." In need of updating and revision? Sure. So broken that a completely new init that swallowed up a bunch of other processes and services was the best answer? Hardly. Systemd was initially sold as providing faster boot times. Objections to its cancerous spread to other services beyond init were dismissed without providing any good reasons for why it was necessary or even desirable beyond "we're doing it, quit complaining." The changeover at Debian was handled so poorly and with such rancor that many from there still have a bad taste in their mouths. Devuan was one response to that, and a good one. Artix was the response to Arch adopting systemd. Slackware and Gentoo and other older distros have stayed away from it. And as another commenter noted, lots of people have abandoned Linux for the BSDs. The systemd fallout is demonstrating something I always thought was the weakest part of Linux compared to the BSDs, which is that the Linux userland is developed completely independently of the kernel. People do whatever the fuck they want, and frequently the relationships seem to be hostile. I don't think systemd really solves that problem, either, but rather makes it much more complex and fragile. Hopefully the ecosystem will continue to support non-systemd distros in the long term.
- vbernat 8y ago
  > Systemd was initially sold as providing faster boot times. Systemd was not about speed. Speed is a side-effect of correctly handling ordering. See http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.
  - dozzie 8y ago
    Ah yes, systemd did promise the correct handling of start ordering (i.e. socket activation). Though this never happened in practice, you still need to manually specify dependencies in unit files, barring the very few daemons.
- iforgotpassword 8y ago
  The init process is faster because they have by far the cleanest and most efficient way of managing and ordering dependencies. Everything else that systemd brings is questionable to say the least. Combine that with a project founder with shitty personality and you get what systemd is today.
- badsectoracula 8y ago
  > The systemd fallout is demonstrating something I always thought was the weakest part of Linux compared to the BSDs, which is that the Linux userland is developed completely independently of the kernel. People do whatever the fuck they want, and frequently the relationships seem to be hostile. TBH i think this is its biggest strength because it makes easier for people to switch components that they dislike. After all, you can still use another init system, audio server, desktop environment, shell and other pieces of the userland if you dislike the defaults without having to change the entire OS. On the other hand with BSDs if you dislike something you have to switch to a fork that affects everything.

sanxiyn 8y ago

Devuan is serving a need. It is not trolling.

jdoss 8y ago
What exact need?
- sanxiyn 8y ago
  A need to run Debian system without systemd.
  - jhkaghjkga 8y ago
    That need is already fulfilled by Debian? Just install sysvinit. (edit:) Also consider that if Debian would stop supporting sysvinit, a distribution adding support for it again would be a real effort compared to just installing a different init system by default. Some desktop environments might want systemd-logind+systemd-shim, but that's really not different from installing systemd-elogind in Devuan...