3 ms·

I haven't yet watched the video, but I'm pretty familiar with the concept from previous links, and I had the following thought about the controversy this projec

I haven't yet watched the video, but I'm pretty familiar with the concept from previous links, and I had the following thought about the controversy this project will probably create. Personally I've been consistently happy with Poettering's projects, especially PulseAudio and systemd. Systemd is just an infinitely better way of handling init and service configuration than anything else I've used on Linux (the weird amalgam of systemd and other service configuration tools you find on a lot of distributions these days strikes me as a particular abomination that hides how nice a cleanly configured systemd setup can be). I would be happy to use a Linux system designed entirely by LP (the infamous systemd/Linux); it would probably be a lot better designed than what we have now. (I'm not really familiar with what the BSDs are doing these days, so I can't comment on them.) My one complaint, which I think is behind many of the criticisms of systemd, is that I don't see why it needs to be so tightly integrated. I would prefer to see many of the projects under the systemd umbrella (Wikipedia describes systemd as a "software suite", which is telling) broken apart into individual programs that can be run entirely independently. Network management, logging, and container management seem like they could all be separate projects. This new one probably should be too. I get the nagging feeling that if Poettering created PulseAudio today, it would be systemd-audio, and therefore wouldn't be as useful to Linux users universally as PA is.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
StreamBright 7y ago
>> Systemd is just an infinitely better way of handling init and service configuration than anything else I've used on Linux What metric? Is it ok for systemd to take over logging, dns, ntp and bunch of services in order to provide a better init as you like it?
- bscphil 7y ago
  Ease of configuration and maintenance is the metric. I specifically addressed the question you asked - I would prefer that the different parts of the systemd software suite be split into programs that can be installed and run (or not) as the user pleases. I'm happy to use systemd, however, because I like nearly every part of it.
  - StreamBright 7y ago
    >> Ease of configuration and maintenance is the metric. This way provided with many alternatives before systemd. >> I would prefer that the different parts of the systemd software suite be split into programs that can be installed and run (or not) as the user pleases Are you contradicting yourself? You say you like all of it after just pointing out its biggest flaws why systems engineers loath it.
    - bscphil 7y ago
      I'm not contradicting myself. I can like all the individual pieces of software that comprise systemd while still criticizing the architecture of the project as a whole. I would prefer that systemd be split into different projects. I would still use most of those projects. And I have to disagree with your claim that "systems engineers loath it". There doesn't seem to be overwhelming pushback against systemd from e.g. RedHat's customers. I use systemd myself on servers (I'm a sysadmin/dev for a very small software project - a part-time job), and I have few complaints about it.
icebraining 7y ago
What did you use besides systemd and sysv? Personally, while I'm ok with systemd, I think Upstart was a decent replacement for the pile of scripts of yore, and gained little from the switch from it to systemd (we used Ubuntu Server where I worked).
- bscphil 7y ago
  I used Upstart, and I briefly tested systems with OpenRC. I wasn't really happy with the configuration tools or the service file format with Upstart, and actually Ubuntu's attempt to do a kind of hybrid between a traditional SysV init and Upstart, and now a hybrid with systemd (the "service" command somehow still exists on Ubuntu!) was one target of my ire in the comment.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

StreamBright 7y ago

>> Systemd is just an infinitely better way of handling init and service configuration than anything else I've used on Linux What metric? Is it ok for systemd to take over logging, dns, ntp and bunch of services in order to provide a better init as you like it?

bscphil 7y ago
Ease of configuration and maintenance is the metric. I specifically addressed the question you asked - I would prefer that the different parts of the systemd software suite be split into programs that can be installed and run (or not) as the user pleases. I'm happy to use systemd, however, because I like nearly every part of it.
- StreamBright 7y ago
  >> Ease of configuration and maintenance is the metric. This way provided with many alternatives before systemd. >> I would prefer that the different parts of the systemd software suite be split into programs that can be installed and run (or not) as the user pleases Are you contradicting yourself? You say you like all of it after just pointing out its biggest flaws why systems engineers loath it.
  - bscphil 7y ago
    I'm not contradicting myself. I can like all the individual pieces of software that comprise systemd while still criticizing the architecture of the project as a whole. I would prefer that systemd be split into different projects. I would still use most of those projects. And I have to disagree with your claim that "systems engineers loath it". There doesn't seem to be overwhelming pushback against systemd from e.g. RedHat's customers. I use systemd myself on servers (I'm a sysadmin/dev for a very small software project - a part-time job), and I have few complaints about it.

icebraining 7y ago

What did you use besides systemd and sysv? Personally, while I'm ok with systemd, I think Upstart was a decent replacement for the pile of scripts of yore, and gained little from the switch from it to systemd (we used Ubuntu Server where I worked).

bscphil 7y ago
I used Upstart, and I briefly tested systems with OpenRC. I wasn't really happy with the configuration tools or the service file format with Upstart, and actually Ubuntu's attempt to do a kind of hybrid between a traditional SysV init and Upstart, and now a hybrid with systemd (the "service" command somehow still exists on Ubuntu!) was one target of my ire in the comment.