4 ms·

People are probably less upset because it doesn't take the "systemd all the things" approach of getting rid of huge chunks of old stuff for what is ostensibly a

by mises 7y ago

People are probably less upset because it doesn't take the "systemd all the things" approach of getting rid of huge chunks of old stuff for what is ostensibly an init system. I don't have much of an issue with systemd (except binary logging; I hate that) and just put up with it, but the reasons for which people objected to systemd don't seem to extend to this.

Spivak 7y ago
The only connection that systemd-resolved has to the init system is the name prefix. Seems odd to praise the BSDs for developing everything in a single repo but faulting systemd for the same approach.
- yarrel 7y ago
  The BSDs are operating systems. SystemD hasn't yet admitted that it is.
  - chousuke 7y ago
    Hasn't admitted? As far as I know, it is an explicitly stated goal of the systemd project to provide an integrated (compared to whatever each distribution assembled together to provide one) base system on top of the Linux kernel with the intent of making the best use of the features provided by the kernel. It seems to me that Lennart looked at the tightly integrated base system + kernel approach of the BSDs and decided he wanted that for Linux too (in addition to whatever other influences he had), and then he made it happen.
    - brohee 7y ago
      Except it's not tightly integrated on OpenBSD, and that you can replace any component for any reason without the whole thing collapsing.
      - genghizkhan 7y ago
        Fwiw, apart from journald and logind that’s true for systemd as well. You can choose to run nothing other than pid 1 and these two daemons. Everything else is optional.
    - _emacsomancer_ 7y ago
      My understanding is that he was influenced in part by launchd.
- throw0101a 7y ago
  > Seems odd to praise the BSDs for developing everything in a single repo but faulting systemd for the same approach. I think it is more accurate to say that the (supposed) problem with systemd's approach is actually tight coupling as opposed to a single repo. OpenSSH, OpenSMTP, OpenBGPD, LibreSSL, Mandoc, the recent Unwind, etc, may all be in the same repo, but none depending on each other. Try taking systemd-resolved (or journald) and running it on its own. If the various systemd "components" were actual components that could be swapped out for something else there would be fewer complains IMHO. systemd-as-init-replacement is/was fine. systemd-as-kitchen-sink is where things went sideways.
  - CameronNemo 7y ago
    Chrome OS runs systemd-journald on top of Upstart. Not that such a setup is supported or encouraged. One of my main gripes about resolved is the D-Bus interface. Lennart needs to remove his lips from that protocol's ass.
    - Spivak 7y ago
      > Lennart needs to And replace it with what? I genuinely don't know anything that exists right now that could replace it. Linux and ecosystem have a lot of IPC primitives but very few usable systems: I know of dbus and ip.
- mises 7y ago
  I didn't praise them for that. It's more that I don't like the systemd way of making everything systemd. The difference is that the stuff openbsd develops is largely standalone applications, whereas systemd wants to take over the world and replace everything. This makes it very hard to tweak a system, and I would again bring up the logging issue. Systemd-journald stores files in binary format, which is a pain. I was working on something where I accidentally bricked the system (VM, thankfully) due to configuring some in-depth security stuff. I mounted the disk and tried to read off the log, but couldn't. It's also a pain to replace it, and non-systemd alternatives are becoming increasingly poorly supported. Systemd wants to take over temporary files, journaling, and much, much more. Many of the implementations are imperfect. That's fine; I understand it's hard to get that much right. Which is why I wish they made it easier to replace systemd components or didn't use it. The init itself (units etc.) is good, and I actually like it. I just wish they got that polished, then made another, separate project if they thought they could do another piece better.
  - Spivak 7y ago
    > I mounted the disk and tried to read off the log, but couldn't. I mean yes, you need something to parse the logs and turn them into human readable text, but the logs are perfectly readable. journalctl --file /mnt/var/log/journal/`</mnt/etc/machine-id`/system.journal | my-favorite-log-reader A lot, dare I say most, of the parts of systemd actually are optional or do nothing until you use them like systemd-machined.
    - admax88q 7y ago
      > journalctl --file /mnt/var/log/journal/`</mnt/etc/machine-id`/system.journal | my-favorite-log-reader Lol you actually think that's good.
      - dang 7y ago
        Yikes, please don't be mean like that on HN. Could you please review and follow the site guidelines? They include: "Don't be snarky." "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

by mises 7y ago

Spivak 7y ago

The only connection that systemd-resolved has to the init system is the name prefix. Seems odd to praise the BSDs for developing everything in a single repo but faulting systemd for the same approach.

yarrel 7y ago
The BSDs are operating systems. SystemD hasn't yet admitted that it is.
- chousuke 7y ago
  Hasn't admitted? As far as I know, it is an explicitly stated goal of the systemd project to provide an integrated (compared to whatever each distribution assembled together to provide one) base system on top of the Linux kernel with the intent of making the best use of the features provided by the kernel. It seems to me that Lennart looked at the tightly integrated base system + kernel approach of the BSDs and decided he wanted that for Linux too (in addition to whatever other influences he had), and then he made it happen.
  - brohee 7y ago
    Except it's not tightly integrated on OpenBSD, and that you can replace any component for any reason without the whole thing collapsing.
    - genghizkhan 7y ago
      Fwiw, apart from journald and logind that’s true for systemd as well. You can choose to run nothing other than pid 1 and these two daemons. Everything else is optional.
  - _emacsomancer_ 7y ago
    My understanding is that he was influenced in part by launchd.
throw0101a 7y ago
> Seems odd to praise the BSDs for developing everything in a single repo but faulting systemd for the same approach. I think it is more accurate to say that the (supposed) problem with systemd's approach is actually tight coupling as opposed to a single repo. OpenSSH, OpenSMTP, OpenBGPD, LibreSSL, Mandoc, the recent Unwind, etc, may all be in the same repo, but none depending on each other. Try taking systemd-resolved (or journald) and running it on its own. If the various systemd "components" were actual components that could be swapped out for something else there would be fewer complains IMHO. systemd-as-init-replacement is/was fine. systemd-as-kitchen-sink is where things went sideways.
- CameronNemo 7y ago
  Chrome OS runs systemd-journald on top of Upstart. Not that such a setup is supported or encouraged. One of my main gripes about resolved is the D-Bus interface. Lennart needs to remove his lips from that protocol's ass.
  - Spivak 7y ago
    > Lennart needs to And replace it with what? I genuinely don't know anything that exists right now that could replace it. Linux and ecosystem have a lot of IPC primitives but very few usable systems: I know of dbus and ip.
mises 7y ago
I didn't praise them for that. It's more that I don't like the systemd way of making everything systemd. The difference is that the stuff openbsd develops is largely standalone applications, whereas systemd wants to take over the world and replace everything. This makes it very hard to tweak a system, and I would again bring up the logging issue. Systemd-journald stores files in binary format, which is a pain. I was working on something where I accidentally bricked the system (VM, thankfully) due to configuring some in-depth security stuff. I mounted the disk and tried to read off the log, but couldn't. It's also a pain to replace it, and non-systemd alternatives are becoming increasingly poorly supported. Systemd wants to take over temporary files, journaling, and much, much more. Many of the implementations are imperfect. That's fine; I understand it's hard to get that much right. Which is why I wish they made it easier to replace systemd components or didn't use it. The init itself (units etc.) is good, and I actually like it. I just wish they got that polished, then made another, separate project if they thought they could do another piece better.
- Spivak 7y ago
  > I mounted the disk and tried to read off the log, but couldn't. I mean yes, you need something to parse the logs and turn them into human readable text, but the logs are perfectly readable. journalctl --file /mnt/var/log/journal/`</mnt/etc/machine-id`/system.journal | my-favorite-log-reader A lot, dare I say most, of the parts of systemd actually are optional or do nothing until you use them like systemd-machined.
  - admax88q 7y ago
    > journalctl --file /mnt/var/log/journal/`</mnt/etc/machine-id`/system.journal | my-favorite-log-reader Lol you actually think that's good.
    - dang 7y ago
      Yikes, please don't be mean like that on HN. Could you please review and follow the site guidelines? They include: "Don't be snarky." "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html