29 ms·

Linux distros without systemd

318 points by telmich 7y ago

zamadatix 7y ago
Alpine is great. I have nothing against systemd but Alpine stands on it's own for containers and VMs. I haven't given it a try on baremetal but I imagine it does just as well there. Not really desktop focused but if you want to run it with a GUI on a laptop it's technically possible.
- telmich 7y ago
  I've actually tried it on my new notebook a few days ago, it runs quite nice: https://www.nico.schottelius.org/blog/alpine-linux-on-the-hp-x360-1040-g5-notebook/ https://www.nico.schottelius.org/blog/alpine-linux-on-the-hp...
  - dantondwa 7y ago
    In the benefits of Alpine, you have put that the sound is great. Out of curiosity, what makes it better than other Linux distros?
    - telmich 7y ago
      Simplicity mostly. It just works. It feels so clean, nothing running there that is not supposed to be there. Installing something takes only sub-seconds, because packages are small. Alpine really is a beauty.
      - dTal 7y ago
        I believe your questioner was specifically referring to your assertion that audio on Alpine is unusually good. It is a somewhat odd observation, since ALSA is entirely a kernel API and Alpine is using the same kernel as everyone else. The only possible source of audible difference would be not running Pulseaudio, which resamples audio (some say, badly). However, you can install Pulseaudio on Alpine, and you can not-install Pulseaudio on most anything else, so it wouldn't really be fair to call that a feature of Alpine.
  - ripdog 7y ago
    Quite nice...? >checkout why the firefox package is broken You call that... nice?
- eeZah7Ux 7y ago
  I don't trust a "security-oriented" distribution with a small developer community: https://threatpost.com/alpine-linux-docker-images-unlocked/144542/ https://threatpost.com/alpine-linux-docker-images-unlocked/1...
  - zamadatix 7y ago
    Note this is only an issue for docker images using non default tools. Not good but not unique, for instance here is another high scored CVE for PAM issues in Ubuntu/Debian https://www.cvedetails.com/cve/CVE-2009-3232/ https://www.cvedetails.com/cve/CVE-2009-3232/ I challenge you to find any decade+ old OS software community you couldn't make the same comment towards.
- Cogitri 7y ago
  I currently use Alpine as my daily driver with GNOME, which is an odd mix I guess, but works nicely :)
Whatitat90 7y ago
SystemD definitely spurred some controversies years ago but is it that bad in 2019? All major distros adopted it and even some that are listed there as "no systemd" in reality just give you choice (e.g. Gentoo). I'd gladly hear the opinion of distro maintainers why did they switch to SystemD if it's as bad as it looks like in people's perception.
- qxcbr 7y ago
  They didn't really have an option: the same organisation controls GNOME and systemd, so they introduced systemd as a hard dependency of GNOME to force distros to adopt systemd. And you can't have a distro out there without GNOME, so... Those distros that can run without systemd have to make their own patches to "fix" GNOME, which is very costly. Even Gentoo struggles with that, as it takes them a long time to release new versions of GNOME because they have to write the patches to strip out systemd first.
  - AdmiralAsshat 7y ago
    >And you can't have a distro out there without GNOME, so... LxQt and any KDE-powered distro would beg to differ. But I agree, in general, that KDE-default distros are few and far between. And the KDE team probably has better things to do with their time than try to maintain a systemd-less fork.
    - lmm 7y ago
      They're rare in the US. KDE-as-default is close to the norm in Europe. KDE has long been a more crossplatform system than Gnome (much better windows support (and even e.g. solaris), BSD is treated as first-class) so I'd hope they'll continue to avoid being systemd-dependent.
      - qxcbr 7y ago
        >They're rare in the US. KDE-as-default is close to the norm in Europe. Based on what?
  - 7y ago
enriquto 7y ago
Love this! Notice that the text about slackware sounds a bit "pessimistic", as if it was a somewhat legacy distribution. Nothing further from the truth. We run a small farm of virtual machines with different up-to-date distributions, and slackware is typically the one that follows upstream packages more closely. For example it had gcc 9.1, bash 5, etc. a few days after they were released.
- telmich 7y ago
  That is pretty cool!
- annadane 7y ago
  Under -current, though.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
sjwright 7y ago
I get no end of bemusement from open source advocates that think it makes any kind of rational sense to campaign against an open source project. THIS IS ALL OPEN SOURCE. Freedom and choice is the whole point, isn't it? If you prefer an alternative or forebear to systemd, that is great. Use it. Advocate for the system you prefer. Convince people that the choice you have made is better. Meanwhile the vast majority of distributions have voluntarily chosen systemd. Perhaps if its critics reflect on the reality of that shift, they could look at ways to improve the alternative to address its perceived deficiencies—just as GCC started doing now that LLVM has taken a bite out of their dominance.
- enriquto 7y ago
  Notice that nobody complains about the existence of systemd, but about the enormous and shady pressures that distros had (particulary debian) to adopt it as standard. Nowadays, the complain is mostly about the systemd monoculture.
  - choeger 7y ago
    In fact many people did complain about the existence - I have read actual demands that distros should actively work against it back in the days. Also the personal attacks against Lennart make it difficult to see any rational point in the whole debate.
  - sjwright 7y ago
    How is systemd any more of a monoculture than the Linux kernel itself? In principle they are more alike than you might care to admit.
    - vpzom 7y ago
      That's a problem too, but existence of other problems doesn't excuse this one
      - sjwright 7y ago
sjwright 7y ago
One of the better videos on this subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AeWu1fZ7bY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AeWu1fZ7bY BSDCan 2018—Benno Rice: The Tragedy of systemd "systemd is, to put it mildly, controversial. Depending on who you ask it's either a complete violation of the UNIX philosophy, a bloated pile of bugs, a complete violation of the elegant simplicity it replaced or, it most cases, some or all of the above. So why have so many Linux distributions taken to it? Is it as bad as people say?
- blu3r4d0n 7y ago
  I love this video and have to share it every time I see this debate. He really show how this argument is kind of weak and this is coming from a BSD guy!
- psadauskas 7y ago
  I watched this a few weeks ago as well, and it is a very good, even-handed overview of systemd. He talks about the history and other tools that came before, like Apple's `launchd` and Ubuntu's `upstart`. He also talks about the actual problems with it, rather than the FUD hysteria (and also explains why some of them are FUD). He's from the BSD world, so his POV is as an (mostly) outsider.
  - JdeBP 7y ago
    You might be interested in these: * https://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2015/10/11/0/ https://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2015/10/11/0/ * https://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2015/09/05/0/ https://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2015/09/05/0/ * http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/ProSystemdAntiSystemd/ http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/ProSystemdAntiSystemd/
- russellbeattie 7y ago
  Basically, people don't like systemd because they don't like change, and groups like shitting on other groups of people? I'm not sure the presenter is condescending enough. Maybe he should have given an abbreviated history of Unix as well, oh wait, he did that.
AsyncAwait 7y ago
I get that not everybody likes systemd, but a lot of the criticisms seem misguided and looking at sysvinit with role-colored glasses. For example, people are complaining about logind being included, but forget that consolekit was unmaintained before that. Yes, there's parts to systemd that not everyone will use, like container support, but in that case you can pretty safely ignore that use case. For me, systemd has provided a much more consistent way of managing services. There's a tightly defined service definition format that allows one to comfortably modify any 3rd party service as well, (unlike random, variable-quality shell scripts), relatively small amount of commands to learn that work consistently across services, mounts, timers etc. There's also much better handling of modern hardware, hotplugging & the like. I can't say I miss sysvinit. Also, stuff like [1] from the anti-systemd camp doesn't inspire confidence. 1 - https://lwn.net/Articles/786593 https://lwn.net/Articles/786593
- mruts 7y ago
  I don’t think anyone thinks that sysvinit is better than systemd, but RC definitely is.
  - PlutoIsAPlanet 7y ago
    You would be surprised.
  - krzyk 7y ago
    Actually I do. systemd is too complicated for my needs, maybe it is usefull in some complicated system setups but for me (and probably others) it is too big, too complex and completely unneeded. What was the problem with sysvinit that they tried to fix? I don't see any.
    - JdeBP 7y ago
      systemd was aimed at the problems with Upstart rather than the problems with van Smoorenburg rc. van Smooreburg rc had already been superseded for its creators. Fedora was using Upstart. The problems with van Smoorenburg rc are widely acknowledged, however, and motivated the creation of Upstart, finit, init-ng, and many other softwares; indeed, the problems of System 3/5 init/rc, which van Smoorenburg rc began as a clone of, similarly motivated the creation of the SAF in AT&T Unix System 5 release 4, the Solaris SMF, and the AIX SRC. There is a history of superseding them that goes back for decades. It is clearly wrong to claim that they are without problem. They've been recognized as problematic and people have been replacing them since before Linux was invented. * http://jdebp.uk./FGA/system-5-rc-problems.html http://jdebp.uk./FGA/system-5-rc-problems.html * http://jdebp.uk./FGA/unix-service-access-facility.html http://jdebp.uk./FGA/unix-service-access-facility.html * https://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2015/09/05/0/ https://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2015/09/05/0/
danieldk 7y ago
Guix is missing, which uses GNU Sheperd, which is in Scheme: https://www.gnu.org/software/shepherd/ https://www.gnu.org/software/shepherd/ That said, to me systemd has been a large improvement. Maybe it has its problems, but at least there is consistency in handling services and logs between Linux distributions, which is a big improvement over a bunch of homegrown sysvinit derivatives, Upstart, and homegrown non-sysvinit scripts.
- telmich 7y ago
  Just added as as-good-as-we-could to the website - do you have any experiences in using it?
  - blu3r4d0n 7y ago
    Couldn't you have just looked into a little bit instead of saying you know nothing about it? It's a distro with functional package management. https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/ https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/
  - mar77i 7y ago
    Guix is a weird little behemoth of a distribution, that allows you to install different versions of different packages at the same time which then builds your effective file system on the fly. That being said, as mad as this sounds, I've heard people are having a lot of fun with it too, so apparently it's also manageable. Guix is for you if you want to run old software on a discontinued software stack simultaneously with a modern system.
    - firethief 7y ago
      That makes it immune to dependency hell; there are no two packages you can't have at the same time due to dependency version conflicts. The big wins for me though are: having all my system configuration in a small set of versionable text files (rather than gigabytes of mutable state), and being able to attach dependencies to the scripts that require them rather than to the system they're expected to be run on. (I use NixOS, but it's the same concept)
kissgyorgy 7y ago
If you are still arguing about systemd, you don't know enough about it, so you should learn about it and you don't understand the big picture. Users crying about Linux desktop all the time, but systemd has a huge part making the situation way better.
- vpzom 7y ago
  If this is what it takes, it's not worth it.
- zaro 7y ago
  > Users crying about Linux desktop all the time, but systemd has a huge part making the situation way better. Definitely. Maybe it's not great that GNOME has a hard dependency on systemd ( I personally don't care), but most people don't appreciate how much things have improved on the desktop with systemd.
  - silversconfused 7y ago
    I've been using linux since kernel 2.2. Deployed hundreds if not thousands of workstations for home users and developers. Trust me, I've seen desktop ups and downs, and I disagree. Systemd works until it doesn't, and then it's an unfixable lost cause and you reload it like a naughty 9x box.
    - zaro 7y ago
      Yeah, same for me. Since about 2.2. And I remember patching init.d scripts on Debian, adding sleep 5 In the network script, because you know our service had to have eth0 up and configured. So it's not like the old init system was perfect either :) Or when I was building VM appliance with dB inside, and I was reading the news about systemd and how it would allow cpu and ram limits per service and thinking how if I had it it would save me from weeks worth of work (yes IBM DB2 is total crap when you run it in VM). and so on. When I look back of all the stupid things I had to take care of and in systemd are just a config away, I can't help but wonder why people dislike it so much.
kevin_b_er 7y ago
Most arguments about systemd will devolve into a Motte and Bailey argument. The problems with systemd are all the stuff tacked on that are mandatory, but if you criticize them you'll get people switching to try to put words into your mouth about how the init replacement is good/bad. The Motte is all the shovelware attached to systemd that is nearly impossible to detatch and the Bailey is the init replacement.
- TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago
  The “shovelware” is what makes it useful.
  - JohnFen 7y ago
    In my opinion, as an init script replacement, systemD is almost a great thing. Including everything else is what makes it a terrible thing.
    - eropple 7y ago
      But...it doesn't include "everything else". My desktop doesn't use systemd-timesyncd, I'm not even sure systemd-nspawn is installed on my home server, that same server isn't using systemd-resolved. I haven't fiddled with journald anywhere 'cause I like it a lot more than rsyslogd, but you totally can forward journald stuff to rsyslogd if that's more your bag (and I think, though don't quote me on that, you can remove it entirely if you want). Yes, there are additional, thoroughly optional, components to the systemd ecosystem that you can choose to opt into. And...so?
      - michaelmrose 7y ago
        You can't replace journald. See the 10 times this has been referenced throughout the thread.
        Spivak 7y ago
        The thing I don't get is how bothered people are by it existence despite being able to just forward logs to syslog and then ignore it forever. [Journald] Storage=None ForwardToSyslog=True And then it's like it was never there. But technically it's better than if it was never there because you can still capture service stdout/stderr and it will show up in the syslog where on an older system it would just be dropped.
beaconfield 7y ago
It's comical how people get so "jazzed" about something like not liking systemd and make a whole movement about it (with their t-shirts and everything). I get people may not love everything about systemd (or maybe they hate it), but I'm not convinced it's so bad. I've been using it since RHEL 7 and I've really gotten used to all of the benefits of systemd. It also doesn't hurt that I went to the session on pid 1 by Lennart Poettering at Red Hat Summit 2014 and he convinced me of the at least not-horribleness of systemd.
- chapium 7y ago
  You either fall into a group that hates systemd or one that could care less about the problem systemd is solving.
  - eropple 7y ago
    ...and when you care quite deeply about the problems being solved, think they're being solved in a pretty good way, and are unsettled by the anti-systemd frothers literally sending Lennart death threats? (Like...this is bad, yo. There are arguments--bad ones, IMO, but arguments--against systemd. But the people who like systemd aren't sending death threats to Devuan people or whatever.) What group is that?
    - silversconfused 7y ago
      To be fair, the ones sending death threats are contributing negatively, while the fork effort is a positive contribution to the situation. We'd appreciate not being lumped in with the worst offenders, if you'd be so kind.
      - tracker1 7y ago
        A lot of the western world has devolved into tribalism and identitarianism. People of similar views on anything are lumped in en-masse and presumed to hold all of the same values, opinions and support all actions of the collective whole. It's a shame that a lot of core values are lost in favor of these viewpoints.
tombert 7y ago
I do find it funny that people crap all over systemd, but don't seem to have a huge problem with launchd, despite the fact that systemd was almost a direct port of it. Personally, while I do think that systemd's scope might have been a bit too ambitious, I do find it easier than something like Upstart
- telmich 7y ago
  I also think upstart was a bit nuts... but how do you think about openrc vs systemd?
  - tombert 7y ago
    FreeBSD uses OpenRC right? I remember liking how easy it was to set up startup scripts in FreeBSD, so I think I like it? I'll admit I haven't used it as much as systemd or Upstart, so I can't give a strong opinion.
    - snazz 7y ago
      OpenRC isn’t the default but is portable to FreeBSD and NetBSD. See https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?init https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?init
      - protomyth 7y ago
        TrueOS (a FreeBSD-based project) uses OpenRC by default.
- snazz 7y ago
  If you use a Mac, you don’t have much choice about your init system and probably don’t get into idealogical arguments about them as often as Linux users do. Plus, there’s always the BSDs, which don’t use systemd but still feel very clean and cohesive.
- JdeBP 7y ago
  systemd was not a port of launchd, direct or otherwise. The problem with launchd being difficult to port off MacOS is one of the reasons why launchd never came about for FreeBSD. * http://jdebp.uk./FGA/launchd-on-bsd.html http://jdebp.uk./FGA/launchd-on-bsd.html systemd was not a port of anything. And its immediate inspiration was Upstart, the system that Fedora was using at the time, and whose drawbacks provoked Lennart Poettering et al. to start working on systemd. (Interestingly, Upstart itself was inspired by the drawbacks of porting launchd.)
peterwwillis 7y ago
The most recent reason I found to hate systemd was it replaced my system DNS resolver with its own (thus requiring me to modify /etc/systemd/resolved.conf, and doing the daemon-reload-service-restart-hokey-pokey, to get a host to function on a network+VPN like it did before). The only reason systemd has its own resolver is they wanted extra DNS functionality. Did I ask for these features? Did I want a new resolver? No. But that's the whole idea behind systemd. A few devs shoving complex features down everyone's throats, just because they felt like it. Operating system fascism. But I don't think we should be angry at systemd developers; they can develop whatever they want. I'm mostly angry at the distributions who opted in to their crap. Systemd has not made my life easier, but it has often made it harder, and the only reason that happened was because a distro allowed it.
- telmich 7y ago
  I don't think being angry at anyone will solve the problem. Using and advocating non-systemd distributions might help much more.
  - enriquto 7y ago
    Being angry does not solve any problem, but it is a legitimate human experience that the OP considered worth sharing.
- silversconfused 7y ago
  Debian shipping this despite the obvious backlash was the whole reason I jumped ship too, that and the frequent boot failures and looooong timeouts (which I'm sure someone will be happy to tell me are my own fault).
adictator 7y ago
We absolutely love Alpine, but it's been hard to integrate with other systems because of it using musl. For instance, our dns resolvers do not work properly & our monitoring solution is incompatible with musl.
curt15 7y ago
Don't Google's servers also run a custom systemd-less Debian derivative? https://www.usenix.org/node/177348 https://www.usenix.org/node/177348
scurvy 7y ago
I don't like it when my process init and logging system also tries to manage my volume mounts. If I unmount a device, I don't want systemd going behind my back and remounting it for me. It's non standard behavior changes like this that drive systemd hate.
- telmich 7y ago
  From what I observe, the hate from systemd USERS towards non-systemd advocates is higher than the hate of non-systemd advocates to systemd.
  - silversconfused 7y ago
    This whole comment section certainly supports that observation. Massive amounts of "you're doing it wrong" instead of compassion.
  - nona 7y ago
    I've never seen systemd users make t-shirts against the others, send death threats, hijack any conversation where systemd might come up to advocate their side… non-systemd advocates on the other hand…
- ReidZB 7y ago
  I find it quite convenient, although I do admit the integration with /etc/fstab is a little weird. I've used it to auto-mount application data directories, for example, before an application comes online.
  - scurvy 7y ago
    If that's your goal, use automount or mount everything at boot. systemd is not the correct answer here.
holstvoogd 7y ago
I recommend watching this to give you some perspective on the SystemD hate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_AIw9bGogo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_AIw9bGogo I too was furious about the existence of systemd, but now I realize that was mostly because I don't want new things and consider many new things to be bad because they are new and there have been a few 'bad apples' in my personal experience
thedaemon 7y ago
AntiX Linux is my current favorite which happens to be systemd free and runs with lighter weight DEs. It takes up only about 500MB of RAM sitting still, so pretty great for older systems and laptops.
Mister_Snuggles 7y ago
I mainly use FreeBSD, but I have a number of Linux VMs that I use where appropriate. The big thing, for me, that systemd brings to the table is consistency. Managing services on CentOS is the same as managing them on Debian which is the same as managing them on OpenSUSE. This makes it a lot easier to deal with the various different Linuxes. Also, it seems to make writing a service a lot easier. Instead of the service needing to daemonize, write out a PID file, or whatever, it can just be a program that does its thing without forking, sends its output to stdout/stderr and systemd takes care of the details. I tried to go through this exercise on a FreeBSD system and ended up just installing 'pm2' to do it for me. I subsequently figured out what I did wrong, but pm2 is working and I see no need to change it. Obviously systemd isn't suited for every use-case, but it doesn't seem nearly as bad as some people make it out to be.
- telmich 7y ago
  I agree with you on that one. It is certainly an advantage, if the interface to manage aspects of different Linux distributions is the same.
- zzzcpan 7y ago
  > Managing services on CentOS is the same as managing them on Debian which is the same as managing them on OpenSUSE. It's not really the same, some systemd-based distros diverge a lot and anything non-systemd much more so, including FreeBSD. Even something as basic as network configuration could be completely different on systemd distros, like Ubuntu with its netplan weirdness and Archlinux going into the opposite direction and forcing you to choose how to deal with network yourself from the start. But still, if you want any sanity in your deployment across different distros - you simply have to avoid using systemd or other host's init and service management systems for anything and bring your own service management with you. It could be as simple as a script starting from root's cron at @reboot (this particular trick survived for decades for example).
  - Spivak 7y ago
    > But still, if you want any sanity in your deployment across different distros This might be true for your in-house app but if you want sanity in packaging your service for inclusion in various distros you include a .service file.
markstos 7y ago
I read everything I could find on systemd to form my own opinion. I used FreeBSD for a decade and have many years of Ubuntu/upstart experience after that. Based on my experience and all the anti-systemd posts online, I expected to dislike it. But on it's merits I really like the consistency it brings to the "system layer" of the OS. I find it's shame when developers skip over systemd for consideration, adding extra layers of complexity when systemd alone would have been sufficient: For example, using Docker when the basic isolation features of systemd would do, or using "forever.js" to manage Node.js processes, when systemd could could be saving 15% memory overhead per process, using software already installed in the base system. On the other hand, I do support diversity of software and am glad to see some other options still being promoted and used. The dangers and weaknesses of monoculture in the physical world apply to software systems as well.
- boramalper 7y ago
  > For example, using Docker when the basic isolation features of systemd would do This is an interesting claim, mind throwing some pointers?
  - progval 7y ago
    https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd.exec.html#Sandboxing https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd.exe... and some other directives documented on the same page.
    - Operyl 7y ago
      I had completely forgotten about these directives! It's things like this that make me glad systemd is a choice, honestly.
      - dijit 7y ago
        SystemD did not invent cgroups. Not only is it possible to use cgroups without systemd it is often easier for small cases and binaries can call cgroups themselves for any child processes they create. The timing of these systems releasing does not equate to causation here. Google themselves (creators of cgroups) do not even use systemd on their own hypervisors which leverage cgroups heavily.
Klathmon 7y ago
This list is missing a linux-ey system which doesn't use Systemd that is growing in popularity! WSL! WSL somewhat annoyingly has a custom/proprietary init system. Partially due to it's "interesting" integration with windows, and partially because it's not even really a full linux system yet. I'm curious if with the switch to WSL2 where they will begin shipping a full linux kernel if systemd will be included or will they stick with their current custom solution?
- darkpuma 7y ago
  > WSL I think you mean GNU/Windows, or as I've taken to calling it, GNU Plus Windows. (Seriously though, the WSL name is deceptive because it doesn't actually contain any Linux code. There is no Linux in "Windows Subsystem for Linux")
  - syntheticcdo 7y ago
    Well not today, but soon it will be GNU/Windows+Linux -- https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/6/18534687/microsoft-windows-10-linux-kernel-feature https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/6/18534687/microsoft-windows...
  - alanfranz 7y ago
    WSL 2.0 contains a full Linux kernel.
    - darkpuma 7y ago
      Yeah but as far as I can tell that doesn't actually exist yet, and isn't scheduled to be available until the end of next month. (Existing inside Microsoft but not publicly is "does not exist" as far as I'm concerned, because I remember all kinds of legendary stuff Microsoft has apparently made but never released.)
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - andrius4669 7y ago
tssva 7y ago
The biggest complaint I regularly see about systemd from those that don't like it is that it violates the UNIX philosophy by combining too many functionalities into one project. Based upon this I found the following quote from the article in regards to Alpine Linux, a distribution based upon BusyBox which implements the functionality of over 100 usually separate executables into one, quite amusing. > It is small and simple, realising the UNIX spirit to the core: doing one thing and doing it well.
- hedora 7y ago
  The difference is that with busy box, everything is optional (just replace the symlink in /bin with another implementation), and designed as a drop-in replacement for standalone utilities (instead of redesigning them poorly from scratch).
- mixmastamyk 7y ago
  It does one thing, everything.
- snazz 7y ago
  The number of binaries is irrelevant. Systemd has a lot of binaries but is still called a monolith. Unlike systemd with journald, Busybox allows you to use Vim instead of Busybox vi without any trouble. Busybox might also emphasize the “small and simple” aspect much more than GNU tools, which have a reputation for being needlessly bloated (see all of the flags to cat, for example).
exabrial 7y ago
My experience with systemd has be extraordinarily positive. I like the unified syntax of unit files. I know that's like 50% of what systemd does, but it does it extraordinarily well. Is systemd-nspawn secure enough now we can forget docker et all? I liked the idea of a "chroot" being supported by the service manager.
coot 7y ago
To be precise: Gentoo allows one to run with or without systemd, and both ways are supported.
- telmich 7y ago
  What is the default at the moment?
  - deathanatos 7y ago
    OpenRC: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Comparison_of_init_systems https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Comparison_of_init_systems
  - jakeogh 7y ago
    To be clear, you choose at install time. There is no official installer (on purpose), so the user either decides to turn to page x for OpenRC or page y for systemd.
aerique 7y ago
I have been running Void Linux since Debian switched to SystemD both at work and at home (including playing Skyrim SSE on Steam using Proton, or StarCraft 2 and Diablo 3 using Lutris) . It is a very nice distro although I would not recommend it to beginners since it is a little rough around the edges if you want to do full disk encryption during installation. Initially I switched to FreeBSD and then OpenBSD but I missed Linux conveniences like native cloud sync clients[1], Steam, Docker, support for the hardware I already had, etc. [1] this was before I discovered Rclone
- sprash 7y ago
  I use void now on everything, work, home even my Raspberry PIs. Can confirm that installation is a PITA. If you want something more fancy than the standard installation like an encrypted boot disk you won't get anything running without touching chroot a few times. But once it runs it runs! The most "stable" rolling release distro I have tried so far. Something that can not be said about Gentoo.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
xaduha 7y ago
NixOS is one of the best distros there is and it uses systemd. Do I interact much with systemd myself? No, I don't even though I don't mind.
bhaavan 7y ago
Where is ChromeOS?!
ww520 7y ago
I've actually done sysvinit style setup before and had to migrate to systemd when it came out later. It's not that bad. It's just another way of running things. It's actually quite simple and consistent. It's a step forward.
nnq 7y ago
What's the recommended way for someone to learn systemd properly? Is there a readable manual somewhere that documents everything? That's the only thing I find scary about such big systems, the lack of comprehensive docs and a "starting point for learning them" from 0 to hero. Like, with Git there's tons of nice tutorials like "learn kit bottom up by reinventing it in way X" etc. plus a good "default book". What's the equivalent of https://git-scm.com/book https://git-scm.com/book for systemd?
- otterley 7y ago
  Good question! A great introduction that was written while the author was still building systemd can be found here: http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html Also, the "systemd for administrators" series: https://gist.github.com/bcremer/8cdf6900c35dda65f387 https://gist.github.com/bcremer/8cdf6900c35dda65f387
- heinrichhartman 7y ago
  I found the man pages to be a pretty good read. Use `man -t systemctl` to produce a pdf version. There are a couple of files you want to read, e.g. systemd.service, systemd.unit, systemd, deamon etc. But those are linked at the `SEE ALSO` section.
- jolmg 7y ago
  The Archlinux Wiki is my go-to for that kind of thing: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Systemd https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Systemd Also, check the related articles on the right sidebar on the top of the article. It doesn't document everything, but it quickly gets you to learning the overview, the basics, and what's most important for general usage of systemd. If you really want absolutely everything the references are the man-pages. Excluding those that document C functions, there seems to be 256 systemd man-pages in total. 36 are regular commands (section 1; like systemctl), 64 are file formats (section 5; like systemd.service), 139 are system administration commands (section 8; like daemons like systemd-networkd), and 17 are miscellaneous topics (section 7; like bootup). I would consider the manpages of section 1 and 5 to be the important ones, and just section 1 is enough if you never intend to read or write a service or other unit file yourself. Here's an online index of the manpages: https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/index.html https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/index.html
toyg 7y ago
Systemd is the worst init system except for all the others that have been developed from time to time. Some of the trade-offs it makes, and its expansionist attitudes, are really grating. But it introduced a higher level of consistency in the Linux world for userland developers, which is almost invariably a good thing from a commercial perspective.
- silversconfused 7y ago
  > from a commercial perspective Nailed it. The hobbyists are revolting. Anyone interested in making their system do something odd and clever is having problems, and the people running linux systems 9-5 are busy calling us morons for trying or even caring...
pard68 7y ago
This anti-systemd meme is getting tiring. I generally find it is perpetuated by people who use Linux at a hobby level. Rarely do I speak with guys in Ops who dislike systemd. I am not trying to discredit people here, there are hobby users who are more knowledgeable about Linux related systems than many guys who are professionals. My point is that Linux and systemd are both meant for use on servers, in production, where speed and consistency rule. I manage 3000 Linux servers and 20,000 services running on those servers. When I log into a machine and am welcomed by a RHEL6 motd I groan, because sysvinit is not enjoyable to use, it takes longer to reboot those machines, and tracking down logs is a chore. When I log into a RHEL7 machine I am not elated, but I am glad to know that pid 1 isn't trying to make my life harder.
- syn0byte 7y ago
  Hi, ops guy; Fuck systemd. Boot time: A possible 5-10 extra seconds from sysvinit is the problem here not the 5 minutes of BIOS/EFI POST time for those server boxen? Logs: Where's the storage of the log data in journalctl and what tools can I use to read that data in a small PXE rescue environment? But hot damn I didn't have to ls /var/log so that's nice. Sarcasm aside how does it make your life any easier? I got a stack of FIXMEs to work on to get our infrastructure working, lot alone stable, on systemd.
  - pard68 7y ago
    > A possible 5-10 extra seconds > the 5 minutes of BIOS/EFI POST time Yeah we measure boot up in seconds. If I restart a machine and it takes more than ~10 seconds to boot I send a ticket to our infra guys to figure out why the server is configured poorly/troubleshoot the slow start. >Logs I guess I prefer `journalctl -u service.service -f` or `journalctl -p "crit" --since "2 days ago"` to the ole `ls /var/log` and then `grep`ing Honestly, I don't understand how it makes life harder. To me, systemd is a huge QoL impovement. Even in the most mundane tasks like `systemctl restart tomcat-*`
- silversconfused 7y ago
  Being dismissed as a meme is tiring as well. I like hacking on my system at boot time, and dismissing my use case because of your own is kinda hostile.
siffland 7y ago
One of my biggest concerns about systemd is the ownership. Sure it is open sourced, however RedHat has a lot of pull on its maintainers (Soon to be IBM). What is to stop them from dual licensing it or close sourcing it. They have lots of products like that (jboss/wildfly...spacewalk/satellite). After everything runs on systemd the ball in in their court. Sure people can say they are going to fork it, but in reality how often does that work out (I concede are some examples where it does, X11, nextcloud, etc.). In my paranoid mind I can see Redhat commercializing it and adding features to it for only paying customers after they win through attrition the monopoly on the OS (after systemd incorporates everything, resolvers, cron, ntp, etc...). They are first and foremost a business with investors and a bottom line. Again not an attack on system itself, just my untrusting and paranoid nature (to many years of security scans and cve’s and users, can’t trust users)…
- pas 7y ago
  The moment it stops being free Debian drops/forks it. Furthermore, if Red Hat can monetize a system manager daemon, well ... I mean, good for them. Oracle tried with the JVM (they had some commercial features). Furthermore, if systemd provides a lot of basic facilities (global/user services, device management, login sessions, cron, ntp, DNS resolving) someone ought to maintain and support it, and if a for-profit company does it, I don't mind if they try to cover those expenses. (As long as it's also GPL2.)
  - siffland 7y ago
    Systemd is not GPLv2, according to wikipedia it is LGPLv2.1+. Of course someone here at work told me i am splitting hairs and they are pretty much the same thing and compatible.
jakeogh 7y ago
I'm still waiting for it to eat dbus.
peter_d_sherman 7y ago
I wish there were some way to favorite discussions on HN, not merely the article that started them -- if that feature existed, then this would be one of my favorite discussions on HN ever... why? Well, you have a ton of bright minds, who, for whatever reason(s), can't agree, yet each one adds some valuable piece of information to the debate. Basically, where there's controversy (especially with bright minds) then there's always something there. I hope that future system designers and historians will read and re-read these systemd controversies we are having in the present day... maybe we'll have some fundamental key piece of understanding then that we don't now, and based on it, everyone could agree... of course, then again, perhaps that would never happen... Still, a lively, highly informative, interesting and thought-provoking discussion! A+ as far as discussions on HN go!
burfog 7y ago
SysV init had the ability to restart, allowing upgrades without rebooting. Can systemd do that? The mechanism was kind of interesting: SysV init would create socketpair, then fork. The parent (with PID 1, required for correct functionality) would then exec the new SysV init binary with an option specified to make it receive state over the socket. The child would supply that state, then exit.
- acdha 7y ago
  You’re looking for `daemon-reexec`: https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemctl.html https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemctl.h... > Reexecute the systemd manager. This will serialize the manager state, reexecute the process and deserialize the state again. This command is of little use except for debugging and package upgrades. Sometimes, it might be helpful as a heavy-weight daemon-reload. While the daemon is being reexecuted, all sockets systemd listening on behalf of user configuration will stay accessible.
nrclark 7y ago
I actually really like systemd's service files, and the functionality it provides. I like the ability to express dependencies clearly, the fine-grained control over server restart behavior, and a ton of other systemd features. I'm also very happy to see it replace cron. What I _do not_ like are: - systemd-resolved - systemd-networkd - systemd taking over disk mounts - systemctl - unit files spread out all over the place - mandatory journald - mandatory dbus - only works on Linux - pushing the BSDs farther towards being obsolete I'm very glad to see sysv-init on the way out, personally. I think systemd unit files are a huge improvement, and greatly improve standardization and init quality. But that doesn't intrinsically mean that the systemd project is doing the right thing.
- rzzzt 7y ago
  Is there an alternative init implementation that is compatible with systemd unit files?
  - JdeBP 7y ago
    There are certainly automated tools for converting systemd unit files into the service definitions used by other systems. * http://jdebp.uk./Softwares/nosh/worked-example.html http://jdebp.uk./Softwares/nosh/worked-example.html * http://jdebp.uk./Softwares/nosh/guide/converting-systemd-units.html http://jdebp.uk./Softwares/nosh/guide/converting-systemd-uni... * http://jdebp.uk./Softwares/nosh/guide/commands/convert-systemd-units.xml http://jdebp.uk./Softwares/nosh/guide/commands/convert-syste...
andrewstuart 7y ago
I'm a big fan of systemd. Comprehensive, well organized, reliable, powerful. It makes a consistent service from what was an evolutionary hotchpotch of stuff. Whatever it is that the haters hate, I don't get.
cracauer 7y ago
I have way too many cases of systemd startup items hanging with their timeout for no good reason. Worse, my most complicated high-uptime machine usually does not shut down in a reasonable time. Systemd says "waiting for session user cracauer" (something like it) for whatever reason. It also hung on undoing swapspace, when that swapspace was a custom stack of block layers. I don't need swapspace to be "shut down". It went into 20 minutes something always stating another timeout when one expired. I mean, WTF? The problem here is that I had to do an unclean shutdown on that machine (reset button) multiple times, and that I really can't have. This also illustrates a point I have been making about Linux and the BSDs from day one: When the BSDs boot or shut down the keyboard is connected to the rc scripts. You can do Control-C for SIGINT and Control-\ for SIGQUIT, The latter makes everybody in the stack leave a coredump on disk. Now, compare these two: 1) in BSD when there is a startup or shutdown item taking too long or hanging I can abort that single item and I can later debug what was going on with the coredumps. 2) on a Linux system with systemd I cannot "cut through" startup or shutdown items I don't want to wait for, and there is no way to debug any of that if the machine doesn't actually come up completely, or if thing happen at shutdown. The only interaction I can conduct is the reset button. To add insult to injury, systemd also hides a lot of error messages that would traditionally be dumped on the console, and instead of giving me that error message systemd captures it and print on the screen instructions how to get that error message (which usually are longer than the error message was, WTF?). Instructions that I cannot follow because somebody detached my keyboard, and because I will never be in that machine in an up state while that context is available. This also invalidates the point that systemd could be one platform that you learn once and then use on a wide basis. The debugging abilities are nowhere close to adequate, so you have to learn by try-n-error.
- webstrand 7y ago
  I've struggled with, and am still struggling with, units hanging on shutdown. It's my biggest complaint with systemD aside from journald eating its own logs. I've been using magic SysRq to force hanging units to quit. SysRq + e sends SIGINT to all processes, and SysRq + i sends SIGKILL.
  - cracauer 7y ago
AaronFriel 7y ago
systemd is good, but I think it came too soon. A lot of the comments here are about memory safe languages are spot on. systemd was written with two major assumptions in mind: 1. Linux system complexity has exploded and needs a top-to-bottom rewrite 2. It's safe to do such a rewrite in C Since the systemd project, I'd say #1 has been largely affirmed. I like the result of systemd because it provides uniform tooling around complex Linux systems. I'd also say the tide has shifted against #2 in a big way, there's much greater skepticism that anyone on this planet (short of djb or a few others) can write safe C, let alone safe C with concurrency and side effects. This is really unfortunate, because it probably means the solution is to rewrite systemd in a memory safe language, and that's a huge undertaking.
- cesarb 7y ago
  > it probably means the solution is to rewrite systemd in a memory safe language, and that's a huge undertaking. At least with Rust, the rewrite could be done piecemeal, since Rust can easily interoperate with C (as long as you don't abuse C macros).
cracauer 7y ago
So, how are any of you systemd apologists defending this little gem? https://twitter.com/MartinCracauer/status/1094709863052201992 https://twitter.com/MartinCracauer/status/109470986305220199...
- hyperdunc 7y ago
  I would also like to know what the rationale is for this behavior. Showing immediate and useful feedback on the screen seems an obvious thing to do, especially when running a command at an interactive terminal.
saghm 7y ago
See also the search filter on Distrowatch for non-systemd distros: https://distrowatch.com/search.php?defaultinit=Not+systemd&status=Active https://distrowatch.com/search.php?defaultinit=Not+systemd&s...
Torwald 7y ago
Is there a Linux distro which I can install on my Mac and where I don't have to touch the terminal ever?
DiseasedBadger 7y ago
I maintain systems with and without. I thought I understood systemd, but I've given up trying to predict the behavior of systems running systemd. The tragedy for me, is that I don't really like how the Init systems work, either. So there's really no one on my side. I seem to always fall into the trap of the Dreaded Centrist.
godshatter 7y ago
I think PCLinuxOS is still systemd-free.
cik 7y ago
I went on angry binge where I Ubuntu finally pushed me over the edge with it's latest... och. Between that and systemd, I've starting to dislike Linux, pretty much for the first time since I started using Linux back in the early 90's. The second real, functional, genuinely working docker support shows up in *BSD and is working - I'll be running it on my desktop.
chmielewski 7y ago
Don’t forget one of my favorite init projects! LinuxBBQ!
massysett 7y ago
systemd is pervasive in the GNU/Linux world and I think it’s futile to stay on GNU/Linux and try to avoid systemd. Just look at the list of distros in the article: a bunch of obscure forks of prominent systemd distros like Debian and Arch, a distro (Gentoo) whose main claim to fame is compile it yourself, one where they say a leading Google search is whether the distro is dead, and one where they say “oh gee, we haven’t heard of it, let us know if it works.” Seems to me that if you hate systemd, it’s time to try a BSD. GNU/Linux has been going down this path of complexity for years. These same arguments spawned with udev years ago, and Slackware held out then just as it is with systemd. OpenBSD on the other hand embraces simplicity and the old UNIX way. Of course it also lacks niceties like Bluetooth, but that’s the price you pay. Maybe systemd is needed to manage complex systems that support ugly things like Bluetooth.

318 points by telmich 7y ago

Alpine is great. I have nothing against systemd but Alpine stands on it's own for containers and VMs. I haven't given it a try on baremetal but I imagine it does just as well there. Not really desktop focused but if you want to run it with a GUI on a laptop it's technically possible.

telmich 7y ago
I've actually tried it on my new notebook a few days ago, it runs quite nice: https://www.nico.schottelius.org/blog/alpine-linux-on-the-hp-x360-1040-g5-notebook/ https://www.nico.schottelius.org/blog/alpine-linux-on-the-hp...
- dantondwa 7y ago
  In the benefits of Alpine, you have put that the sound is great. Out of curiosity, what makes it better than other Linux distros?
  - telmich 7y ago
    Simplicity mostly. It just works. It feels so clean, nothing running there that is not supposed to be there. Installing something takes only sub-seconds, because packages are small. Alpine really is a beauty.
    - dTal 7y ago
      I believe your questioner was specifically referring to your assertion that audio on Alpine is unusually good. It is a somewhat odd observation, since ALSA is entirely a kernel API and Alpine is using the same kernel as everyone else. The only possible source of audible difference would be not running Pulseaudio, which resamples audio (some say, badly). However, you can install Pulseaudio on Alpine, and you can not-install Pulseaudio on most anything else, so it wouldn't really be fair to call that a feature of Alpine.
- ripdog 7y ago
  Quite nice...? >checkout why the firefox package is broken You call that... nice?
eeZah7Ux 7y ago
I don't trust a "security-oriented" distribution with a small developer community: https://threatpost.com/alpine-linux-docker-images-unlocked/144542/ https://threatpost.com/alpine-linux-docker-images-unlocked/1...
- zamadatix 7y ago
  Note this is only an issue for docker images using non default tools. Not good but not unique, for instance here is another high scored CVE for PAM issues in Ubuntu/Debian https://www.cvedetails.com/cve/CVE-2009-3232/ https://www.cvedetails.com/cve/CVE-2009-3232/ I challenge you to find any decade+ old OS software community you couldn't make the same comment towards.
Cogitri 7y ago
I currently use Alpine as my daily driver with GNOME, which is an odd mix I guess, but works nicely :)

Whatitat90 7y ago

SystemD definitely spurred some controversies years ago but is it that bad in 2019? All major distros adopted it and even some that are listed there as "no systemd" in reality just give you choice (e.g. Gentoo). I'd gladly hear the opinion of distro maintainers why did they switch to SystemD if it's as bad as it looks like in people's perception.

qxcbr 7y ago
They didn't really have an option: the same organisation controls GNOME and systemd, so they introduced systemd as a hard dependency of GNOME to force distros to adopt systemd. And you can't have a distro out there without GNOME, so... Those distros that can run without systemd have to make their own patches to "fix" GNOME, which is very costly. Even Gentoo struggles with that, as it takes them a long time to release new versions of GNOME because they have to write the patches to strip out systemd first.
- AdmiralAsshat 7y ago
  >And you can't have a distro out there without GNOME, so... LxQt and any KDE-powered distro would beg to differ. But I agree, in general, that KDE-default distros are few and far between. And the KDE team probably has better things to do with their time than try to maintain a systemd-less fork.
  - lmm 7y ago
    They're rare in the US. KDE-as-default is close to the norm in Europe. KDE has long been a more crossplatform system than Gnome (much better windows support (and even e.g. solaris), BSD is treated as first-class) so I'd hope they'll continue to avoid being systemd-dependent.
    - qxcbr 7y ago
      >They're rare in the US. KDE-as-default is close to the norm in Europe. Based on what?
- 7y ago

enriquto 7y ago

Love this! Notice that the text about slackware sounds a bit "pessimistic", as if it was a somewhat legacy distribution. Nothing further from the truth. We run a small farm of virtual machines with different up-to-date distributions, and slackware is typically the one that follows upstream packages more closely. For example it had gcc 9.1, bash 5, etc. a few days after they were released.

telmich 7y ago
That is pretty cool!
annadane 7y ago
Under -current, though.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

sjwright 7y ago

I get no end of bemusement from open source advocates that think it makes any kind of rational sense to campaign against an open source project. THIS IS ALL OPEN SOURCE. Freedom and choice is the whole point, isn't it? If you prefer an alternative or forebear to systemd, that is great. Use it. Advocate for the system you prefer. Convince people that the choice you have made is better. Meanwhile the vast majority of distributions have voluntarily chosen systemd. Perhaps if its critics reflect on the reality of that shift, they could look at ways to improve the alternative to address its perceived deficiencies—just as GCC started doing now that LLVM has taken a bite out of their dominance.

enriquto 7y ago
Notice that nobody complains about the existence of systemd, but about the enormous and shady pressures that distros had (particulary debian) to adopt it as standard. Nowadays, the complain is mostly about the systemd monoculture.
- choeger 7y ago
  In fact many people did complain about the existence - I have read actual demands that distros should actively work against it back in the days. Also the personal attacks against Lennart make it difficult to see any rational point in the whole debate.
- sjwright 7y ago
  How is systemd any more of a monoculture than the Linux kernel itself? In principle they are more alike than you might care to admit.
  - vpzom 7y ago
    That's a problem too, but existence of other problems doesn't excuse this one
    - sjwright 7y ago

sjwright 7y ago

One of the better videos on this subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AeWu1fZ7bY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AeWu1fZ7bY BSDCan 2018—Benno Rice: The Tragedy of systemd "systemd is, to put it mildly, controversial. Depending on who you ask it's either a complete violation of the UNIX philosophy, a bloated pile of bugs, a complete violation of the elegant simplicity it replaced or, it most cases, some or all of the above. So why have so many Linux distributions taken to it? Is it as bad as people say?

blu3r4d0n 7y ago
I love this video and have to share it every time I see this debate. He really show how this argument is kind of weak and this is coming from a BSD guy!
psadauskas 7y ago
I watched this a few weeks ago as well, and it is a very good, even-handed overview of systemd. He talks about the history and other tools that came before, like Apple's `launchd` and Ubuntu's `upstart`. He also talks about the actual problems with it, rather than the FUD hysteria (and also explains why some of them are FUD). He's from the BSD world, so his POV is as an (mostly) outsider.
- JdeBP 7y ago
  You might be interested in these: * https://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2015/10/11/0/ https://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2015/10/11/0/ * https://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2015/09/05/0/ https://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2015/09/05/0/ * http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/ProSystemdAntiSystemd/ http://uselessd.darknedgy.net/ProSystemdAntiSystemd/
russellbeattie 7y ago
Basically, people don't like systemd because they don't like change, and groups like shitting on other groups of people? I'm not sure the presenter is condescending enough. Maybe he should have given an abbreviated history of Unix as well, oh wait, he did that.

AsyncAwait 7y ago

I get that not everybody likes systemd, but a lot of the criticisms seem misguided and looking at sysvinit with role-colored glasses. For example, people are complaining about logind being included, but forget that consolekit was unmaintained before that. Yes, there's parts to systemd that not everyone will use, like container support, but in that case you can pretty safely ignore that use case. For me, systemd has provided a much more consistent way of managing services. There's a tightly defined service definition format that allows one to comfortably modify any 3rd party service as well, (unlike random, variable-quality shell scripts), relatively small amount of commands to learn that work consistently across services, mounts, timers etc. There's also much better handling of modern hardware, hotplugging & the like. I can't say I miss sysvinit. Also, stuff like [1] from the anti-systemd camp doesn't inspire confidence. 1 - https://lwn.net/Articles/786593 https://lwn.net/Articles/786593

mruts 7y ago
I don’t think anyone thinks that sysvinit is better than systemd, but RC definitely is.
- PlutoIsAPlanet 7y ago
  You would be surprised.
- krzyk 7y ago
  Actually I do. systemd is too complicated for my needs, maybe it is usefull in some complicated system setups but for me (and probably others) it is too big, too complex and completely unneeded. What was the problem with sysvinit that they tried to fix? I don't see any.
  - JdeBP 7y ago
    systemd was aimed at the problems with Upstart rather than the problems with van Smoorenburg rc. van Smooreburg rc had already been superseded for its creators. Fedora was using Upstart. The problems with van Smoorenburg rc are widely acknowledged, however, and motivated the creation of Upstart, finit, init-ng, and many other softwares; indeed, the problems of System 3/5 init/rc, which van Smoorenburg rc began as a clone of, similarly motivated the creation of the SAF in AT&T Unix System 5 release 4, the Solaris SMF, and the AIX SRC. There is a history of superseding them that goes back for decades. It is clearly wrong to claim that they are without problem. They've been recognized as problematic and people have been replacing them since before Linux was invented. * http://jdebp.uk./FGA/system-5-rc-problems.html http://jdebp.uk./FGA/system-5-rc-problems.html * http://jdebp.uk./FGA/unix-service-access-facility.html http://jdebp.uk./FGA/unix-service-access-facility.html * https://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2015/09/05/0/ https://blog.darknedgy.net/technology/2015/09/05/0/

danieldk 7y ago

Guix is missing, which uses GNU Sheperd, which is in Scheme: https://www.gnu.org/software/shepherd/ https://www.gnu.org/software/shepherd/ That said, to me systemd has been a large improvement. Maybe it has its problems, but at least there is consistency in handling services and logs between Linux distributions, which is a big improvement over a bunch of homegrown sysvinit derivatives, Upstart, and homegrown non-sysvinit scripts.

telmich 7y ago
Just added as as-good-as-we-could to the website - do you have any experiences in using it?
- blu3r4d0n 7y ago
  Couldn't you have just looked into a little bit instead of saying you know nothing about it? It's a distro with functional package management. https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/ https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/
- mar77i 7y ago
  Guix is a weird little behemoth of a distribution, that allows you to install different versions of different packages at the same time which then builds your effective file system on the fly. That being said, as mad as this sounds, I've heard people are having a lot of fun with it too, so apparently it's also manageable. Guix is for you if you want to run old software on a discontinued software stack simultaneously with a modern system.
  - firethief 7y ago
    That makes it immune to dependency hell; there are no two packages you can't have at the same time due to dependency version conflicts. The big wins for me though are: having all my system configuration in a small set of versionable text files (rather than gigabytes of mutable state), and being able to attach dependencies to the scripts that require them rather than to the system they're expected to be run on. (I use NixOS, but it's the same concept)

kissgyorgy 7y ago

If you are still arguing about systemd, you don't know enough about it, so you should learn about it and you don't understand the big picture. Users crying about Linux desktop all the time, but systemd has a huge part making the situation way better.

vpzom 7y ago
If this is what it takes, it's not worth it.
zaro 7y ago
> Users crying about Linux desktop all the time, but systemd has a huge part making the situation way better. Definitely. Maybe it's not great that GNOME has a hard dependency on systemd ( I personally don't care), but most people don't appreciate how much things have improved on the desktop with systemd.
- silversconfused 7y ago
  I've been using linux since kernel 2.2. Deployed hundreds if not thousands of workstations for home users and developers. Trust me, I've seen desktop ups and downs, and I disagree. Systemd works until it doesn't, and then it's an unfixable lost cause and you reload it like a naughty 9x box.
  - zaro 7y ago
    Yeah, same for me. Since about 2.2. And I remember patching init.d scripts on Debian, adding sleep 5 In the network script, because you know our service had to have eth0 up and configured. So it's not like the old init system was perfect either :) Or when I was building VM appliance with dB inside, and I was reading the news about systemd and how it would allow cpu and ram limits per service and thinking how if I had it it would save me from weeks worth of work (yes IBM DB2 is total crap when you run it in VM). and so on. When I look back of all the stupid things I had to take care of and in systemd are just a config away, I can't help but wonder why people dislike it so much.

kevin_b_er 7y ago

Most arguments about systemd will devolve into a Motte and Bailey argument. The problems with systemd are all the stuff tacked on that are mandatory, but if you criticize them you'll get people switching to try to put words into your mouth about how the init replacement is good/bad. The Motte is all the shovelware attached to systemd that is nearly impossible to detatch and the Bailey is the init replacement.

TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago
The “shovelware” is what makes it useful.
- JohnFen 7y ago
  In my opinion, as an init script replacement, systemD is almost a great thing. Including everything else is what makes it a terrible thing.
  - eropple 7y ago
    But...it doesn't include "everything else". My desktop doesn't use systemd-timesyncd, I'm not even sure systemd-nspawn is installed on my home server, that same server isn't using systemd-resolved. I haven't fiddled with journald anywhere 'cause I like it a lot more than rsyslogd, but you totally can forward journald stuff to rsyslogd if that's more your bag (and I think, though don't quote me on that, you can remove it entirely if you want). Yes, there are additional, thoroughly optional, components to the systemd ecosystem that you can choose to opt into. And...so?
    - michaelmrose 7y ago
      You can't replace journald. See the 10 times this has been referenced throughout the thread.
      - Spivak 7y ago
        The thing I don't get is how bothered people are by it existence despite being able to just forward logs to syslog and then ignore it forever. [Journald] Storage=None ForwardToSyslog=True And then it's like it was never there. But technically it's better than if it was never there because you can still capture service stdout/stderr and it will show up in the syslog where on an older system it would just be dropped.

beaconfield 7y ago

It's comical how people get so "jazzed" about something like not liking systemd and make a whole movement about it (with their t-shirts and everything). I get people may not love everything about systemd (or maybe they hate it), but I'm not convinced it's so bad. I've been using it since RHEL 7 and I've really gotten used to all of the benefits of systemd. It also doesn't hurt that I went to the session on pid 1 by Lennart Poettering at Red Hat Summit 2014 and he convinced me of the at least not-horribleness of systemd.

chapium 7y ago
You either fall into a group that hates systemd or one that could care less about the problem systemd is solving.
- eropple 7y ago
  ...and when you care quite deeply about the problems being solved, think they're being solved in a pretty good way, and are unsettled by the anti-systemd frothers literally sending Lennart death threats? (Like...this is bad, yo. There are arguments--bad ones, IMO, but arguments--against systemd. But the people who like systemd aren't sending death threats to Devuan people or whatever.) What group is that?
  - silversconfused 7y ago
    To be fair, the ones sending death threats are contributing negatively, while the fork effort is a positive contribution to the situation. We'd appreciate not being lumped in with the worst offenders, if you'd be so kind.
    - tracker1 7y ago
      A lot of the western world has devolved into tribalism and identitarianism. People of similar views on anything are lumped in en-masse and presumed to hold all of the same values, opinions and support all actions of the collective whole. It's a shame that a lot of core values are lost in favor of these viewpoints.

tombert 7y ago

I do find it funny that people crap all over systemd, but don't seem to have a huge problem with launchd, despite the fact that systemd was almost a direct port of it. Personally, while I do think that systemd's scope might have been a bit too ambitious, I do find it easier than something like Upstart

telmich 7y ago
I also think upstart was a bit nuts... but how do you think about openrc vs systemd?
- tombert 7y ago
  FreeBSD uses OpenRC right? I remember liking how easy it was to set up startup scripts in FreeBSD, so I think I like it? I'll admit I haven't used it as much as systemd or Upstart, so I can't give a strong opinion.
  - snazz 7y ago
    OpenRC isn’t the default but is portable to FreeBSD and NetBSD. See https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?init https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?init
    - protomyth 7y ago
      TrueOS (a FreeBSD-based project) uses OpenRC by default.
snazz 7y ago
If you use a Mac, you don’t have much choice about your init system and probably don’t get into idealogical arguments about them as often as Linux users do. Plus, there’s always the BSDs, which don’t use systemd but still feel very clean and cohesive.
JdeBP 7y ago
systemd was not a port of launchd, direct or otherwise. The problem with launchd being difficult to port off MacOS is one of the reasons why launchd never came about for FreeBSD. * http://jdebp.uk./FGA/launchd-on-bsd.html http://jdebp.uk./FGA/launchd-on-bsd.html systemd was not a port of anything. And its immediate inspiration was Upstart, the system that Fedora was using at the time, and whose drawbacks provoked Lennart Poettering et al. to start working on systemd. (Interestingly, Upstart itself was inspired by the drawbacks of porting launchd.)

peterwwillis 7y ago

The most recent reason I found to hate systemd was it replaced my system DNS resolver with its own (thus requiring me to modify /etc/systemd/resolved.conf, and doing the daemon-reload-service-restart-hokey-pokey, to get a host to function on a network+VPN like it did before). The only reason systemd has its own resolver is they wanted extra DNS functionality. Did I ask for these features? Did I want a new resolver? No. But that's the whole idea behind systemd. A few devs shoving complex features down everyone's throats, just because they felt like it. Operating system fascism. But I don't think we should be angry at systemd developers; they can develop whatever they want. I'm mostly angry at the distributions who opted in to their crap. Systemd has not made my life easier, but it has often made it harder, and the only reason that happened was because a distro allowed it.

telmich 7y ago
I don't think being angry at anyone will solve the problem. Using and advocating non-systemd distributions might help much more.
- enriquto 7y ago
  Being angry does not solve any problem, but it is a legitimate human experience that the OP considered worth sharing.
silversconfused 7y ago
Debian shipping this despite the obvious backlash was the whole reason I jumped ship too, that and the frequent boot failures and looooong timeouts (which I'm sure someone will be happy to tell me are my own fault).

adictator 7y ago

We absolutely love Alpine, but it's been hard to integrate with other systems because of it using musl. For instance, our dns resolvers do not work properly & our monitoring solution is incompatible with musl.

curt15 7y ago

Don't Google's servers also run a custom systemd-less Debian derivative? https://www.usenix.org/node/177348 https://www.usenix.org/node/177348

scurvy 7y ago

I don't like it when my process init and logging system also tries to manage my volume mounts. If I unmount a device, I don't want systemd going behind my back and remounting it for me. It's non standard behavior changes like this that drive systemd hate.

telmich 7y ago
From what I observe, the hate from systemd USERS towards non-systemd advocates is higher than the hate of non-systemd advocates to systemd.
- silversconfused 7y ago
  This whole comment section certainly supports that observation. Massive amounts of "you're doing it wrong" instead of compassion.
- nona 7y ago
  I've never seen systemd users make t-shirts against the others, send death threats, hijack any conversation where systemd might come up to advocate their side… non-systemd advocates on the other hand…
ReidZB 7y ago
I find it quite convenient, although I do admit the integration with /etc/fstab is a little weird. I've used it to auto-mount application data directories, for example, before an application comes online.
- scurvy 7y ago
  If that's your goal, use automount or mount everything at boot. systemd is not the correct answer here.

holstvoogd 7y ago

I recommend watching this to give you some perspective on the SystemD hate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_AIw9bGogo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_AIw9bGogo I too was furious about the existence of systemd, but now I realize that was mostly because I don't want new things and consider many new things to be bad because they are new and there have been a few 'bad apples' in my personal experience

thedaemon 7y ago

AntiX Linux is my current favorite which happens to be systemd free and runs with lighter weight DEs. It takes up only about 500MB of RAM sitting still, so pretty great for older systems and laptops.

Mister_Snuggles 7y ago

I mainly use FreeBSD, but I have a number of Linux VMs that I use where appropriate. The big thing, for me, that systemd brings to the table is consistency. Managing services on CentOS is the same as managing them on Debian which is the same as managing them on OpenSUSE. This makes it a lot easier to deal with the various different Linuxes. Also, it seems to make writing a service a lot easier. Instead of the service needing to daemonize, write out a PID file, or whatever, it can just be a program that does its thing without forking, sends its output to stdout/stderr and systemd takes care of the details. I tried to go through this exercise on a FreeBSD system and ended up just installing 'pm2' to do it for me. I subsequently figured out what I did wrong, but pm2 is working and I see no need to change it. Obviously systemd isn't suited for every use-case, but it doesn't seem nearly as bad as some people make it out to be.

telmich 7y ago
I agree with you on that one. It is certainly an advantage, if the interface to manage aspects of different Linux distributions is the same.
zzzcpan 7y ago
> Managing services on CentOS is the same as managing them on Debian which is the same as managing them on OpenSUSE. It's not really the same, some systemd-based distros diverge a lot and anything non-systemd much more so, including FreeBSD. Even something as basic as network configuration could be completely different on systemd distros, like Ubuntu with its netplan weirdness and Archlinux going into the opposite direction and forcing you to choose how to deal with network yourself from the start. But still, if you want any sanity in your deployment across different distros - you simply have to avoid using systemd or other host's init and service management systems for anything and bring your own service management with you. It could be as simple as a script starting from root's cron at @reboot (this particular trick survived for decades for example).
- Spivak 7y ago
  > But still, if you want any sanity in your deployment across different distros This might be true for your in-house app but if you want sanity in packaging your service for inclusion in various distros you include a .service file.

markstos 7y ago

I read everything I could find on systemd to form my own opinion. I used FreeBSD for a decade and have many years of Ubuntu/upstart experience after that. Based on my experience and all the anti-systemd posts online, I expected to dislike it. But on it's merits I really like the consistency it brings to the "system layer" of the OS. I find it's shame when developers skip over systemd for consideration, adding extra layers of complexity when systemd alone would have been sufficient: For example, using Docker when the basic isolation features of systemd would do, or using "forever.js" to manage Node.js processes, when systemd could could be saving 15% memory overhead per process, using software already installed in the base system. On the other hand, I do support diversity of software and am glad to see some other options still being promoted and used. The dangers and weaknesses of monoculture in the physical world apply to software systems as well.

boramalper 7y ago
> For example, using Docker when the basic isolation features of systemd would do This is an interesting claim, mind throwing some pointers?
- progval 7y ago
  https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd.exec.html#Sandboxing https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd.exe... and some other directives documented on the same page.
  - Operyl 7y ago
    I had completely forgotten about these directives! It's things like this that make me glad systemd is a choice, honestly.
    - dijit 7y ago
      SystemD did not invent cgroups. Not only is it possible to use cgroups without systemd it is often easier for small cases and binaries can call cgroups themselves for any child processes they create. The timing of these systems releasing does not equate to causation here. Google themselves (creators of cgroups) do not even use systemd on their own hypervisors which leverage cgroups heavily.

Klathmon 7y ago

This list is missing a linux-ey system which doesn't use Systemd that is growing in popularity! WSL! WSL somewhat annoyingly has a custom/proprietary init system. Partially due to it's "interesting" integration with windows, and partially because it's not even really a full linux system yet. I'm curious if with the switch to WSL2 where they will begin shipping a full linux kernel if systemd will be included or will they stick with their current custom solution?

darkpuma 7y ago
> WSL I think you mean GNU/Windows, or as I've taken to calling it, GNU Plus Windows. (Seriously though, the WSL name is deceptive because it doesn't actually contain any Linux code. There is no Linux in "Windows Subsystem for Linux")
- syntheticcdo 7y ago
  Well not today, but soon it will be GNU/Windows+Linux -- https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/6/18534687/microsoft-windows-10-linux-kernel-feature https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/6/18534687/microsoft-windows...
- alanfranz 7y ago
  WSL 2.0 contains a full Linux kernel.
  - darkpuma 7y ago
    Yeah but as far as I can tell that doesn't actually exist yet, and isn't scheduled to be available until the end of next month. (Existing inside Microsoft but not publicly is "does not exist" as far as I'm concerned, because I remember all kinds of legendary stuff Microsoft has apparently made but never released.)
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- andrius4669 7y ago

tssva 7y ago

The biggest complaint I regularly see about systemd from those that don't like it is that it violates the UNIX philosophy by combining too many functionalities into one project. Based upon this I found the following quote from the article in regards to Alpine Linux, a distribution based upon BusyBox which implements the functionality of over 100 usually separate executables into one, quite amusing. > It is small and simple, realising the UNIX spirit to the core: doing one thing and doing it well.

hedora 7y ago
The difference is that with busy box, everything is optional (just replace the symlink in /bin with another implementation), and designed as a drop-in replacement for standalone utilities (instead of redesigning them poorly from scratch).
mixmastamyk 7y ago
It does one thing, everything.
snazz 7y ago
The number of binaries is irrelevant. Systemd has a lot of binaries but is still called a monolith. Unlike systemd with journald, Busybox allows you to use Vim instead of Busybox vi without any trouble. Busybox might also emphasize the “small and simple” aspect much more than GNU tools, which have a reputation for being needlessly bloated (see all of the flags to cat, for example).

exabrial 7y ago

My experience with systemd has be extraordinarily positive. I like the unified syntax of unit files. I know that's like 50% of what systemd does, but it does it extraordinarily well. Is systemd-nspawn secure enough now we can forget docker et all? I liked the idea of a "chroot" being supported by the service manager.

coot 7y ago

To be precise: Gentoo allows one to run with or without systemd, and both ways are supported.

telmich 7y ago
What is the default at the moment?
- deathanatos 7y ago
  OpenRC: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Comparison_of_init_systems https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Comparison_of_init_systems
- jakeogh 7y ago
  To be clear, you choose at install time. There is no official installer (on purpose), so the user either decides to turn to page x for OpenRC or page y for systemd.

aerique 7y ago

I have been running Void Linux since Debian switched to SystemD both at work and at home (including playing Skyrim SSE on Steam using Proton, or StarCraft 2 and Diablo 3 using Lutris) . It is a very nice distro although I would not recommend it to beginners since it is a little rough around the edges if you want to do full disk encryption during installation. Initially I switched to FreeBSD and then OpenBSD but I missed Linux conveniences like native cloud sync clients[1], Steam, Docker, support for the hardware I already had, etc. [1] this was before I discovered Rclone

sprash 7y ago
I use void now on everything, work, home even my Raspberry PIs. Can confirm that installation is a PITA. If you want something more fancy than the standard installation like an encrypted boot disk you won't get anything running without touching chroot a few times. But once it runs it runs! The most "stable" rolling release distro I have tried so far. Something that can not be said about Gentoo.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

xaduha 7y ago

NixOS is one of the best distros there is and it uses systemd. Do I interact much with systemd myself? No, I don't even though I don't mind.

bhaavan 7y ago

Where is ChromeOS?!

ww520 7y ago

I've actually done sysvinit style setup before and had to migrate to systemd when it came out later. It's not that bad. It's just another way of running things. It's actually quite simple and consistent. It's a step forward.

nnq 7y ago

What's the recommended way for someone to learn systemd properly? Is there a readable manual somewhere that documents everything? That's the only thing I find scary about such big systems, the lack of comprehensive docs and a "starting point for learning them" from 0 to hero. Like, with Git there's tons of nice tutorials like "learn kit bottom up by reinventing it in way X" etc. plus a good "default book". What's the equivalent of https://git-scm.com/book https://git-scm.com/book for systemd?

otterley 7y ago
Good question! A great introduction that was written while the author was still building systemd can be found here: http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html Also, the "systemd for administrators" series: https://gist.github.com/bcremer/8cdf6900c35dda65f387 https://gist.github.com/bcremer/8cdf6900c35dda65f387
heinrichhartman 7y ago
I found the man pages to be a pretty good read. Use `man -t systemctl` to produce a pdf version. There are a couple of files you want to read, e.g. systemd.service, systemd.unit, systemd, deamon etc. But those are linked at the `SEE ALSO` section.
jolmg 7y ago
The Archlinux Wiki is my go-to for that kind of thing: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Systemd https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Systemd Also, check the related articles on the right sidebar on the top of the article. It doesn't document everything, but it quickly gets you to learning the overview, the basics, and what's most important for general usage of systemd. If you really want absolutely everything the references are the man-pages. Excluding those that document C functions, there seems to be 256 systemd man-pages in total. 36 are regular commands (section 1; like systemctl), 64 are file formats (section 5; like systemd.service), 139 are system administration commands (section 8; like daemons like systemd-networkd), and 17 are miscellaneous topics (section 7; like bootup). I would consider the manpages of section 1 and 5 to be the important ones, and just section 1 is enough if you never intend to read or write a service or other unit file yourself. Here's an online index of the manpages: https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/index.html https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/index.html

toyg 7y ago

Systemd is the worst init system except for all the others that have been developed from time to time. Some of the trade-offs it makes, and its expansionist attitudes, are really grating. But it introduced a higher level of consistency in the Linux world for userland developers, which is almost invariably a good thing from a commercial perspective.

silversconfused 7y ago
> from a commercial perspective Nailed it. The hobbyists are revolting. Anyone interested in making their system do something odd and clever is having problems, and the people running linux systems 9-5 are busy calling us morons for trying or even caring...

pard68 7y ago

This anti-systemd meme is getting tiring. I generally find it is perpetuated by people who use Linux at a hobby level. Rarely do I speak with guys in Ops who dislike systemd. I am not trying to discredit people here, there are hobby users who are more knowledgeable about Linux related systems than many guys who are professionals. My point is that Linux and systemd are both meant for use on servers, in production, where speed and consistency rule. I manage 3000 Linux servers and 20,000 services running on those servers. When I log into a machine and am welcomed by a RHEL6 motd I groan, because sysvinit is not enjoyable to use, it takes longer to reboot those machines, and tracking down logs is a chore. When I log into a RHEL7 machine I am not elated, but I am glad to know that pid 1 isn't trying to make my life harder.

syn0byte 7y ago
Hi, ops guy; Fuck systemd. Boot time: A possible 5-10 extra seconds from sysvinit is the problem here not the 5 minutes of BIOS/EFI POST time for those server boxen? Logs: Where's the storage of the log data in journalctl and what tools can I use to read that data in a small PXE rescue environment? But hot damn I didn't have to ls /var/log so that's nice. Sarcasm aside how does it make your life any easier? I got a stack of FIXMEs to work on to get our infrastructure working, lot alone stable, on systemd.
- pard68 7y ago
  > A possible 5-10 extra seconds > the 5 minutes of BIOS/EFI POST time Yeah we measure boot up in seconds. If I restart a machine and it takes more than ~10 seconds to boot I send a ticket to our infra guys to figure out why the server is configured poorly/troubleshoot the slow start. >Logs I guess I prefer `journalctl -u service.service -f` or `journalctl -p "crit" --since "2 days ago"` to the ole `ls /var/log` and then `grep`ing Honestly, I don't understand how it makes life harder. To me, systemd is a huge QoL impovement. Even in the most mundane tasks like `systemctl restart tomcat-*`
silversconfused 7y ago
Being dismissed as a meme is tiring as well. I like hacking on my system at boot time, and dismissing my use case because of your own is kinda hostile.

siffland 7y ago

One of my biggest concerns about systemd is the ownership. Sure it is open sourced, however RedHat has a lot of pull on its maintainers (Soon to be IBM). What is to stop them from dual licensing it or close sourcing it. They have lots of products like that (jboss/wildfly...spacewalk/satellite). After everything runs on systemd the ball in in their court. Sure people can say they are going to fork it, but in reality how often does that work out (I concede are some examples where it does, X11, nextcloud, etc.). In my paranoid mind I can see Redhat commercializing it and adding features to it for only paying customers after they win through attrition the monopoly on the OS (after systemd incorporates everything, resolvers, cron, ntp, etc...). They are first and foremost a business with investors and a bottom line. Again not an attack on system itself, just my untrusting and paranoid nature (to many years of security scans and cve’s and users, can’t trust users)…

pas 7y ago
The moment it stops being free Debian drops/forks it. Furthermore, if Red Hat can monetize a system manager daemon, well ... I mean, good for them. Oracle tried with the JVM (they had some commercial features). Furthermore, if systemd provides a lot of basic facilities (global/user services, device management, login sessions, cron, ntp, DNS resolving) someone ought to maintain and support it, and if a for-profit company does it, I don't mind if they try to cover those expenses. (As long as it's also GPL2.)
- siffland 7y ago
  Systemd is not GPLv2, according to wikipedia it is LGPLv2.1+. Of course someone here at work told me i am splitting hairs and they are pretty much the same thing and compatible.

jakeogh 7y ago

I'm still waiting for it to eat dbus.

peter_d_sherman 7y ago

I wish there were some way to favorite discussions on HN, not merely the article that started them -- if that feature existed, then this would be one of my favorite discussions on HN ever... why? Well, you have a ton of bright minds, who, for whatever reason(s), can't agree, yet each one adds some valuable piece of information to the debate. Basically, where there's controversy (especially with bright minds) then there's always something there. I hope that future system designers and historians will read and re-read these systemd controversies we are having in the present day... maybe we'll have some fundamental key piece of understanding then that we don't now, and based on it, everyone could agree... of course, then again, perhaps that would never happen... Still, a lively, highly informative, interesting and thought-provoking discussion! A+ as far as discussions on HN go!

burfog 7y ago

SysV init had the ability to restart, allowing upgrades without rebooting. Can systemd do that? The mechanism was kind of interesting: SysV init would create socketpair, then fork. The parent (with PID 1, required for correct functionality) would then exec the new SysV init binary with an option specified to make it receive state over the socket. The child would supply that state, then exit.

acdha 7y ago
You’re looking for `daemon-reexec`: https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemctl.html https://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemctl.h... > Reexecute the systemd manager. This will serialize the manager state, reexecute the process and deserialize the state again. This command is of little use except for debugging and package upgrades. Sometimes, it might be helpful as a heavy-weight daemon-reload. While the daemon is being reexecuted, all sockets systemd listening on behalf of user configuration will stay accessible.

nrclark 7y ago

I actually really like systemd's service files, and the functionality it provides. I like the ability to express dependencies clearly, the fine-grained control over server restart behavior, and a ton of other systemd features. I'm also very happy to see it replace cron. What I _do not_ like are: - systemd-resolved - systemd-networkd - systemd taking over disk mounts - systemctl - unit files spread out all over the place - mandatory journald - mandatory dbus - only works on Linux - pushing the BSDs farther towards being obsolete I'm very glad to see sysv-init on the way out, personally. I think systemd unit files are a huge improvement, and greatly improve standardization and init quality. But that doesn't intrinsically mean that the systemd project is doing the right thing.

rzzzt 7y ago
Is there an alternative init implementation that is compatible with systemd unit files?
- JdeBP 7y ago
  There are certainly automated tools for converting systemd unit files into the service definitions used by other systems. * http://jdebp.uk./Softwares/nosh/worked-example.html http://jdebp.uk./Softwares/nosh/worked-example.html * http://jdebp.uk./Softwares/nosh/guide/converting-systemd-units.html http://jdebp.uk./Softwares/nosh/guide/converting-systemd-uni... * http://jdebp.uk./Softwares/nosh/guide/commands/convert-systemd-units.xml http://jdebp.uk./Softwares/nosh/guide/commands/convert-syste...

andrewstuart 7y ago

I'm a big fan of systemd. Comprehensive, well organized, reliable, powerful. It makes a consistent service from what was an evolutionary hotchpotch of stuff. Whatever it is that the haters hate, I don't get.

cracauer 7y ago

I have way too many cases of systemd startup items hanging with their timeout for no good reason. Worse, my most complicated high-uptime machine usually does not shut down in a reasonable time. Systemd says "waiting for session user cracauer" (something like it) for whatever reason. It also hung on undoing swapspace, when that swapspace was a custom stack of block layers. I don't need swapspace to be "shut down". It went into 20 minutes something always stating another timeout when one expired. I mean, WTF? The problem here is that I had to do an unclean shutdown on that machine (reset button) multiple times, and that I really can't have. This also illustrates a point I have been making about Linux and the BSDs from day one: When the BSDs boot or shut down the keyboard is connected to the rc scripts. You can do Control-C for SIGINT and Control-\ for SIGQUIT, The latter makes everybody in the stack leave a coredump on disk. Now, compare these two: 1) in BSD when there is a startup or shutdown item taking too long or hanging I can abort that single item and I can later debug what was going on with the coredumps. 2) on a Linux system with systemd I cannot "cut through" startup or shutdown items I don't want to wait for, and there is no way to debug any of that if the machine doesn't actually come up completely, or if thing happen at shutdown. The only interaction I can conduct is the reset button. To add insult to injury, systemd also hides a lot of error messages that would traditionally be dumped on the console, and instead of giving me that error message systemd captures it and print on the screen instructions how to get that error message (which usually are longer than the error message was, WTF?). Instructions that I cannot follow because somebody detached my keyboard, and because I will never be in that machine in an up state while that context is available. This also invalidates the point that systemd could be one platform that you learn once and then use on a wide basis. The debugging abilities are nowhere close to adequate, so you have to learn by try-n-error.

webstrand 7y ago
I've struggled with, and am still struggling with, units hanging on shutdown. It's my biggest complaint with systemD aside from journald eating its own logs. I've been using magic SysRq to force hanging units to quit. SysRq + e sends SIGINT to all processes, and SysRq + i sends SIGKILL.
- cracauer 7y ago

AaronFriel 7y ago

systemd is good, but I think it came too soon. A lot of the comments here are about memory safe languages are spot on. systemd was written with two major assumptions in mind: 1. Linux system complexity has exploded and needs a top-to-bottom rewrite 2. It's safe to do such a rewrite in C Since the systemd project, I'd say #1 has been largely affirmed. I like the result of systemd because it provides uniform tooling around complex Linux systems. I'd also say the tide has shifted against #2 in a big way, there's much greater skepticism that anyone on this planet (short of djb or a few others) can write safe C, let alone safe C with concurrency and side effects. This is really unfortunate, because it probably means the solution is to rewrite systemd in a memory safe language, and that's a huge undertaking.

cesarb 7y ago
> it probably means the solution is to rewrite systemd in a memory safe language, and that's a huge undertaking. At least with Rust, the rewrite could be done piecemeal, since Rust can easily interoperate with C (as long as you don't abuse C macros).

cracauer 7y ago

So, how are any of you systemd apologists defending this little gem? https://twitter.com/MartinCracauer/status/1094709863052201992 https://twitter.com/MartinCracauer/status/109470986305220199...

hyperdunc 7y ago
I would also like to know what the rationale is for this behavior. Showing immediate and useful feedback on the screen seems an obvious thing to do, especially when running a command at an interactive terminal.

saghm 7y ago

See also the search filter on Distrowatch for non-systemd distros: https://distrowatch.com/search.php?defaultinit=Not+systemd&status=Active https://distrowatch.com/search.php?defaultinit=Not+systemd&s...

Torwald 7y ago

Is there a Linux distro which I can install on my Mac and where I don't have to touch the terminal ever?

DiseasedBadger 7y ago

I maintain systems with and without. I thought I understood systemd, but I've given up trying to predict the behavior of systems running systemd. The tragedy for me, is that I don't really like how the Init systems work, either. So there's really no one on my side. I seem to always fall into the trap of the Dreaded Centrist.

godshatter 7y ago

I think PCLinuxOS is still systemd-free.

cik 7y ago

I went on angry binge where I Ubuntu finally pushed me over the edge with it's latest... och. Between that and systemd, I've starting to dislike Linux, pretty much for the first time since I started using Linux back in the early 90's. The second real, functional, genuinely working docker support shows up in *BSD and is working - I'll be running it on my desktop.

chmielewski 7y ago

Don’t forget one of my favorite init projects! LinuxBBQ!

massysett 7y ago

systemd is pervasive in the GNU/Linux world and I think it’s futile to stay on GNU/Linux and try to avoid systemd. Just look at the list of distros in the article: a bunch of obscure forks of prominent systemd distros like Debian and Arch, a distro (Gentoo) whose main claim to fame is compile it yourself, one where they say a leading Google search is whether the distro is dead, and one where they say “oh gee, we haven’t heard of it, let us know if it works.” Seems to me that if you hate systemd, it’s time to try a BSD. GNU/Linux has been going down this path of complexity for years. These same arguments spawned with udev years ago, and Slackware held out then just as it is with systemd. OpenBSD on the other hand embraces simplicity and the old UNIX way. Of course it also lacks niceties like Bluetooth, but that’s the price you pay. Maybe systemd is needed to manage complex systems that support ugly things like Bluetooth.