6 ms·

The software that is just a better init system continues to not be.

by yarrel 8y ago

donbright 8y ago
"Because the Portable Service concepts introduces zero new metadata and just builds on existing security and resource bundling features of systemd it's implemented in a set of distinct tools, relatively disconnected from the rest of systemd. " clearly, this is a messy situation. lots of different pieces doing different things in different ways. in order to harmonize this, and simplify it, I believe we need to have systemdd, a daemon for systemd, so that all of it's various pieces can be in one, neat, centralized location.
- chris_wot 8y ago
  What a ridiculous comment. Keeping these tools relatively decoupled is a good thing.
  - dogecoinbase 8y ago
    I can't speak for the GP, but I believe their comment is parody. Keeping tools decoupled is, of course, very good -- systemd is the antithesis of that norm.
    - chris_wot 8y ago
      Ah, if it was sarcasm then apologies - it's not something that one can easily pick up through text.
      - donbright 8y ago
        That is no problem. We had our comments scattered out into separate pieces, each doing their own thing in a non-standard comment idiom. In order to simplify and organize things better, I have created commentd which will combine them all into one comment. To save valuable disk space I have also compressed them and put them in binary format. begin 644 - M0F%S:6PZ($QI<W1E;BP@9&]N)W0@;65N=&EO;B!T:&4@=V%R(2!)(&UE;G1I M;VYE9"!I="!O;F-E+"!B=70@22!T:&EN:R!)(&=O="!A=V%Y('=I=&@@:70@ )86QR:6=H="X* ` end
        chris_wot 8y ago
        Base64 this: H4sIAAAAAAAA/4vML1UvSlVIVEjJTM7WAwBgPKpvDgAAAA==
gsich 8y ago
Care to elaborate?
- jcranendonk 8y ago
  Containerization doesn't strike me as a common feature of an init system.
  - rspeer 8y ago
    And init systems are, unfortunately, not a common feature of containers so far. I really wouldn't mind seeing both of them in the same project. Both init systems and container systems are concerned with dependencies, logging, and managing the lifetime of processes, and systemd is way better at the last two than Docker, so I'm optimistic.
  - dozzie 8y ago
    QR code generator is not a common feature of an init system, yet systemd includes one. Modern attempt at OS packaging (a.k.a. containerization) is not a weird thing in such a neighbourhood at all.
    - tssva 8y ago
      The systemd init system doesn't have a qrcode generator. This is typical anti-systemd FUD of trying to conflate the systemd init process and the other processes available as part of the systemd project. The separate journald log server available as part of the systemd project can generate qrcodes. journald can cryptographically sign logs so that future log tampering can be detected. This requires two keys, a sealing key and a verification key. The verification key must be stored off server. When the keys are generated systemd can display a qrcode to allow easy recording of the verification key.
      - gsich 8y ago
        It seems some people on HN love to hate sytemd. Even though they can't come up with an alternative that's better. Hint: It's not sysvinit.
sethrin 8y ago
There's limited grounds for this to not be a disingenuous argument. Systemd is not well described as an init system. It is a service management system, which handles transitions in system state, including (but not limited to) init and shutdown. The reason why systemd is considered a large change is because sysvinit had fundamental defects in its ability to manage processes. Cgroups were as I recall only one of several attempts to introduce improvements to the Linux kernel features, following the example of other Unixes. It's not quite correct to say that systemd was designed without regard to backwards compatibility, but it is intended to be a relatively clean break. One might say that systemd is a modern "init" system with some backwards-compatible elements, and OpenRC is more of a backwards-compatible system with some modern features. I've generally had a positive impression of the systemd developers' ability to design systems, and to communicate those designs. In most cases, I do not disagree with the choices they have made. There have been a few errors, and there is a great deal of bad blood. I think both that the software is generally good, and that there's nothing wrong with informed criticism.

The software that is just a better init system continues to not be.

by yarrel 8y ago

The software that is just a better init system continues to not be.

"Because the Portable Service concepts introduces zero new metadata and just builds on existing security and resource bundling features of systemd it's implemented in a set of distinct tools, relatively disconnected from the rest of systemd. " clearly, this is a messy situation. lots of different pieces doing different things in different ways. in order to harmonize this, and simplify it, I believe we need to have systemdd, a daemon for systemd, so that all of it's various pieces can be in one, neat, centralized location.

chris_wot 8y ago
What a ridiculous comment. Keeping these tools relatively decoupled is a good thing.
- dogecoinbase 8y ago
  I can't speak for the GP, but I believe their comment is parody. Keeping tools decoupled is, of course, very good -- systemd is the antithesis of that norm.
  - chris_wot 8y ago
    Ah, if it was sarcasm then apologies - it's not something that one can easily pick up through text.
    - donbright 8y ago
      That is no problem. We had our comments scattered out into separate pieces, each doing their own thing in a non-standard comment idiom. In order to simplify and organize things better, I have created commentd which will combine them all into one comment. To save valuable disk space I have also compressed them and put them in binary format. begin 644 - M0F%S:6PZ($QI<W1E;BP@9&]N)W0@;65N=&EO;B!T:&4@=V%R(2!)(&UE;G1I M;VYE9"!I="!O;F-E+"!B=70@22!T:&EN:R!)(&=O="!A=V%Y('=I=&@@:70@ )86QR:6=H="X* ` end
      - chris_wot 8y ago
        Base64 this: H4sIAAAAAAAA/4vML1UvSlVIVEjJTM7WAwBgPKpvDgAAAA==

gsich 8y ago

Care to elaborate?

jcranendonk 8y ago
Containerization doesn't strike me as a common feature of an init system.
- rspeer 8y ago
  And init systems are, unfortunately, not a common feature of containers so far. I really wouldn't mind seeing both of them in the same project. Both init systems and container systems are concerned with dependencies, logging, and managing the lifetime of processes, and systemd is way better at the last two than Docker, so I'm optimistic.
- dozzie 8y ago
  QR code generator is not a common feature of an init system, yet systemd includes one. Modern attempt at OS packaging (a.k.a. containerization) is not a weird thing in such a neighbourhood at all.
  - tssva 8y ago
    The systemd init system doesn't have a qrcode generator. This is typical anti-systemd FUD of trying to conflate the systemd init process and the other processes available as part of the systemd project. The separate journald log server available as part of the systemd project can generate qrcodes. journald can cryptographically sign logs so that future log tampering can be detected. This requires two keys, a sealing key and a verification key. The verification key must be stored off server. When the keys are generated systemd can display a qrcode to allow easy recording of the verification key.
    - gsich 8y ago
      It seems some people on HN love to hate sytemd. Even though they can't come up with an alternative that's better. Hint: It's not sysvinit.

sethrin 8y ago

There's limited grounds for this to not be a disingenuous argument. Systemd is not well described as an init system. It is a service management system, which handles transitions in system state, including (but not limited to) init and shutdown. The reason why systemd is considered a large change is because sysvinit had fundamental defects in its ability to manage processes. Cgroups were as I recall only one of several attempts to introduce improvements to the Linux kernel features, following the example of other Unixes. It's not quite correct to say that systemd was designed without regard to backwards compatibility, but it is intended to be a relatively clean break. One might say that systemd is a modern "init" system with some backwards-compatible elements, and OpenRC is more of a backwards-compatible system with some modern features. I've generally had a positive impression of the systemd developers' ability to design systems, and to communicate those designs. In most cases, I do not disagree with the choices they have made. There have been a few errors, and there is a great deal of bad blood. I think both that the software is generally good, and that there's nothing wrong with informed criticism.