5 ms·

> Why would I want to start working on software I don't use or need? Why do systemd advocates always insist that every implementation must include the features

> Why would I want to start working on software I don't use or need? Why do systemd advocates always insist that every implementation must include the features they think are important? If you don't care about multi-user session management, sure, but considering practically every window manager/DE relied on consolekit and now logind to provide that functionality, I find it hard to believe it's not desirable by a large majority of users, some of which would belong to the group I was talking about. I love how people who are obliviously not the target audience feel the need to chime in. > Yes, we had strong things to say about software requiring logind, because it is a terrible (and poorly documented, at least at the time) design. I agree about the lacking documentation, but in terms of design it seems quite solid. Any technical specifics as to why it is terrible? It's interesting that systemd's detractors always seem to be rather vague in this regard, makes me suspicious as to whether they did more than have a knee-jerk reaction to a tool that is different than what they used before. > because it's easier and has fewer problems, at least in some situations Am going to need specifics, because in my experience, the bash scripts always ended up being a hot mess of variable quality as per the individual author's scripting skills with inconsistent behavior across scripts. Not to mention that none of the alternatives give me the functionality I want, because their authors strictly focus on the init part, whereas systemd's much more useful even after the system is up and running due to its event driven nature. Now I realize that not everybody needs some of the extra features, but for those of us that do, (like container management), s6, openRC etc. is even less of an alternative in a real sense. > nothing is stopping you from replacing the bash init scripts with another language The init system needs to be designed to support declarative services from the get go, am not simply talking about using Perl instead of bash here, am talking more along the lines of the Nix vs apt paradigm. > or replacing the entire init subsystem with something else And is something stooping you? This is my biggest gripe with the anti-systemd crowd, am personally happy with systemd, so it's not me who needs to look for alternatives. It's you. And there are plenty, so please pick one that suits you. The constant anti-systemd bashing every time the name is mentioned from people who seem to barely know much about what it's trying, (rather successfully), to do is rather annoying.

makomk 7y ago
Not many users care about multi-user session management. An even tinier number of users care about multi-seat session management (which is when you have mutiple users on the same machine at the same time, with their own screen and input devices). Pretty much every desktop Linux user cares about being able to click options like "shutdown", "restart" and "suspend" in the user interface and have them work. As it currently stands, anyone who wants that basic functionality on Linux - something that's been supported on all other platforms since forever - has to drag along all the baroque undocumented complexity of multi-seat, multi-user support. Why? Well, it seems Red Hat has some customers who sell solutions based on that, or at least used to once upon a time... With the current price of a docking station used to support a single seat in such a setup being comparable to that of a fairly decent refurbished SFF PC, I can't see a huge market for this.
- XorNot 7y ago
  I like the ranting about "multi-user" support in Linux. Coz hey let's all return the Windows days of "the user is always running as super-admin". What could possibly go wrong with that?
pdkl95 7y ago
> The constant anti-systemd bashing every time the name is mentioned from people who seem to barely know much about what it's trying ... to do is rather annoying. The constant misrepresentation and/or refusal to address the actual "anti-systemd" complaints by systemd advocates is also rather annoying. > makes me suspicious as to whether they did more than have a knee-jerk reaction to a tool that is different than what they used before. Resorting to accusations of incompetence only add toxicity to the discussion. You'll have to take my word for it, but I assure you I know what I'm talking about. > but considering practically every window manager/DE relied on consolekit Mine doesn't. Some of the special-purpose computer's I used to use didn't use a window manager. These may be uncommon use cases; so what? They solve the problems they are supposed to solve without any unnecessary overhead. > I find it hard to believe it's not desirable by a large majority of users So only popular need should be supported? The entire point I'm making is that there are many different reasons people use computers, including many that are unique or almost unique. I may use an older window manager, others might prefer to use consolekit or logind, someone else could be interested in developing a totally new post-window-manager design that doesn't even use metaphors like "desktop", "windows", "sessions", etc. All I'm arguing for is the freedom choose any of those options, which includes variations where consolekit isn't used even if it is used in popular configurations. The alternative is to argue that one design must be used everywhere, even when it is inappropriate or unwanted. > in my experience, the bash scripts always ended up being a hot mess I disagree, but you're welcome to your own opinion. If other software works better for you, then great, use it. I'm not trying to convince you to write bash scripts; I'm trying to explain why a single "one size fits all" design isn't possible, because we may be trying to solve different problems or prefer different tools. If systemd wasn't tightly cou0led and instead played nice with the rest of the systemj, we simply replace parts of it when necessary and we wouldn't be having his argument. > Not to mention that none of the alternatives give me the functionality I want Which is why I want you to have the freedom to use the tools you prefer to use, even systemd. Shouldn't other people have the freedom to made different choices?

makomk 7y ago

Not many users care about multi-user session management. An even tinier number of users care about multi-seat session management (which is when you have mutiple users on the same machine at the same time, with their own screen and input devices). Pretty much every desktop Linux user cares about being able to click options like "shutdown", "restart" and "suspend" in the user interface and have them work. As it currently stands, anyone who wants that basic functionality on Linux - something that's been supported on all other platforms since forever - has to drag along all the baroque undocumented complexity of multi-seat, multi-user support. Why? Well, it seems Red Hat has some customers who sell solutions based on that, or at least used to once upon a time... With the current price of a docking station used to support a single seat in such a setup being comparable to that of a fairly decent refurbished SFF PC, I can't see a huge market for this.

XorNot 7y ago
I like the ranting about "multi-user" support in Linux. Coz hey let's all return the Windows days of "the user is always running as super-admin". What could possibly go wrong with that?

pdkl95 7y ago

> The constant anti-systemd bashing every time the name is mentioned from people who seem to barely know much about what it's trying ... to do is rather annoying. The constant misrepresentation and/or refusal to address the actual "anti-systemd" complaints by systemd advocates is also rather annoying. > makes me suspicious as to whether they did more than have a knee-jerk reaction to a tool that is different than what they used before. Resorting to accusations of incompetence only add toxicity to the discussion. You'll have to take my word for it, but I assure you I know what I'm talking about. > but considering practically every window manager/DE relied on consolekit Mine doesn't. Some of the special-purpose computer's I used to use didn't use a window manager. These may be uncommon use cases; so what? They solve the problems they are supposed to solve without any unnecessary overhead. > I find it hard to believe it's not desirable by a large majority of users So only popular need should be supported? The entire point I'm making is that there are many different reasons people use computers, including many that are unique or almost unique. I may use an older window manager, others might prefer to use consolekit or logind, someone else could be interested in developing a totally new post-window-manager design that doesn't even use metaphors like "desktop", "windows", "sessions", etc. All I'm arguing for is the freedom choose any of those options, which includes variations where consolekit isn't used even if it is used in popular configurations. The alternative is to argue that one design must be used everywhere, even when it is inappropriate or unwanted. > in my experience, the bash scripts always ended up being a hot mess I disagree, but you're welcome to your own opinion. If other software works better for you, then great, use it. I'm not trying to convince you to write bash scripts; I'm trying to explain why a single "one size fits all" design isn't possible, because we may be trying to solve different problems or prefer different tools. If systemd wasn't tightly cou0led and instead played nice with the rest of the systemj, we simply replace parts of it when necessary and we wouldn't be having his argument. > Not to mention that none of the alternatives give me the functionality I want Which is why I want you to have the freedom to use the tools you prefer to use, even systemd. Shouldn't other people have the freedom to made different choices?