26 ms·

I think ultimately a lot of the systemd hate is just fear of change and not wanting to give up an init system they are famiiliar with.

by thayne 7y ago

yarrel 7y ago
If we're not afraid of change, Let's change away from systemd.
- lykr0n 7y ago
  To what?
  - msbarnett 7y ago
    RunIt, say.
    - Zancarius 7y ago
      I suspect the OP is referencing Void Linux[1] which makes use of runit as its init system. If not, it's the first thing that came to mind. I'm not sure it's necessarily a better solution as it requires more manual interaction out of the box (namely creating symlinks by hand among other duties), but that might be argued as a feature. There appears to be a wrapper or two out there to automate away some of the tedium. [1] https://voidlinux.org/ https://voidlinux.org/
  - bugbug99 7y ago
    s9
    - castis 7y ago
      What should someone google in order to find out more about this? (i tried, i got lots of information about the samsung phone, even with -samsung and various incantations of 'init', 'processes', 'linux', etc)
      - yyyk 7y ago
        I think the OP meant s6 and not s9. runit, s6 and also nosh are all daemontool-style init systems, which have a somewhat different idea how to do things than systemd all, but all are inspired by the original daemontools package. s6 and nosh have decent overviews: https://skarnet.org/software/s6/ https://skarnet.org/software/s6/ https://jdebp.eu/Softwares/nosh/guide/introduction.html https://jdebp.eu/Softwares/nosh/guide/introduction.html The original daemontools: https://cr.yp.to/daemontools/faq/create.html#why https://cr.yp.to/daemontools/faq/create.html#why I'll let others decide whether these are better or worse than systemd. I go with whatever my distro would give me, since picking a different init system is too much work...
- ultraism 7y ago
  There was a switch away from SysV init for particular reasons, not change for the sake of change.
  - geggam 7y ago
    You know, everyone says this but every server I worked on (several thousands) which used sysvinit I cant remember any issues with startups that couldn't easily be scripted around. I still dont understand what issues are fixed with systemd and I am aware of many it has created.
    - Someone 7y ago
      I am not convinced every sysadmin could ‘easily’ script around init issues on the servers they manage, but I’ll give you that. The real issue isn’t with servers, it’s with desktop systems and laptops. When users plug in a USB sound card or plug their laptop into a dock, they don’t want to (and likely couldn’t) “easily script around” that; they expect an audio device, network connection, video card to be created without any user intervention, and go away when devices get unplugged. Making a set of init scripts (and surrounding unload and reload scripts) robust against insertion and removal of any of many different devices isn’t easy even for init script gurus, and would lead to duplicated code for detecting and handling the various load/unload conditions. That, I think is the primary reason Apple went with launchd. Systemd took that idea. There’s nothing wrong with that. The main issues with systemd, IMO are a) initially it was buggy, and b) tremendous scope creep.
      - geggam 7y ago
        >The real issue isn’t with servers, it’s with desktop systems and laptops. When users plug in a USB sound card or plug their laptop into a dock, they don’t want to (and likely couldn’t) “easily script around” that; they expect an audio device, network connection, video card to be created without any user intervention, and go away when devices get unplugged. Bingo ! Folks who know, and I mean really understand how to run servers know how to script init. Folks who use Linux on the laptop / Admin Ubuntu do not and systemd makes them able to do stuff "most of the time" There is no reason to force systemd as the default for servers. You dont plug things into servers and in fact you dont want some service monitoring servers so someone can stick something in a server and start rooting around it.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
LinuxBender 7y ago
For me it was the scope creep. Systemd is turning "init" into a framework of all the vulnerable and bad ideas that Microsoft moved away from after Win95/XP. binfmt mount, intercepting and changing the behavior of DNS, polkit implementation, changing user authentication, so much more than I could put here. There are many desktop concepts being shimmed into servers that are simply not appropriate for a lean mean web machine. The good bits that systemd brought into the mainstream such as cgroups and lxc do not require systemd. They can be implemented independently. The watchdog timers and unit files were not a new concept either and did not require systemd.
- barbecue_sauce 7y ago
  Is it correct to even say that systemd "brought" cgroups and lxc? They seem like fairly independent projects.
  - simcop2387 7y ago
    systemd did bring them mainstream, but yea cgroups were around for years before systemd was a thing. But they were mostly independently managed by some small daemons that did things based off rules and other things like that mostly. Systemd changed how they got used, primarily because multiple management systems working with them tends to cause issues, but using them for low impact isolation and tracking of daemons automatically really turned them from something you'd independently setup to something that brings a lot of utility for just about every use-case everywhere. You can still use cgroups independently with systemd, but it's recommended that you use a service and the delegate option to have systemd create a cgroup hierarchy and also know that it shouldn't mess with it after creating it. This lets you have your cake and eat it too if you have a case that systemd doesn't handle (I'm working on a setup with this myself for a coding sandbox setup).
    - djsumdog 7y ago
      I think Docker had a bigger influence on cgroup use than systemd.
efiecho 7y ago
Sigh, this argument just has to come up in every discussion on Systemd. Anyone who dare to be critical about Systemd is apparently just a Luddite afraid of change. You know what, I have no problems with change at all, only when the change is to something worse.
- smitty1e 7y ago
  There doesn't seem to be any single, general, perfect answer. I use systemd across distros, and am now confused when I run into an old SysV system. When I'm sufficiently advanced to bump into one of these corner cases, it will be a Good Problem To Have. The market penetration of systemd is about as good an empirical validation as can be had. How soon until it's codified in Posix?
- thayne 7y ago
  Do you have concrete evidence that systemd is in fact worse from a technical perspective? I'll readily admit that systemd isn't perfect, but my overall experience is that it is better in many ways to its predecessors, and did solve real problems. And when I referred to "systemd hate" I was not referring to healthy criticism, but to those who take very chance to claim that systemd never should have been invented and their init system of choice is clearly superior. Rather than, say trying to make systemd better, or make their init system fix the problems that systemd was designed to remedy.
agumonkey 7y ago
Something bothers me when they talk about fear of change. Some changes are consensual, some are mostly agreed upon organically and then you have cases like systemd who fueled lengthy debates. I don't like to ignore this as "fear of change".

I think ultimately a lot of the systemd hate is just fear of change and not wanting to give up an init system they are famiiliar with.

by thayne 7y ago

I think ultimately a lot of the systemd hate is just fear of change and not wanting to give up an init system they are famiiliar with.

yarrel 7y ago

If we're not afraid of change, Let's change away from systemd.

lykr0n 7y ago
To what?
- msbarnett 7y ago
  RunIt, say.
  - Zancarius 7y ago
    I suspect the OP is referencing Void Linux[1] which makes use of runit as its init system. If not, it's the first thing that came to mind. I'm not sure it's necessarily a better solution as it requires more manual interaction out of the box (namely creating symlinks by hand among other duties), but that might be argued as a feature. There appears to be a wrapper or two out there to automate away some of the tedium. [1] https://voidlinux.org/ https://voidlinux.org/
- bugbug99 7y ago
  s9
  - castis 7y ago
    What should someone google in order to find out more about this? (i tried, i got lots of information about the samsung phone, even with -samsung and various incantations of 'init', 'processes', 'linux', etc)
    - yyyk 7y ago
      I think the OP meant s6 and not s9. runit, s6 and also nosh are all daemontool-style init systems, which have a somewhat different idea how to do things than systemd all, but all are inspired by the original daemontools package. s6 and nosh have decent overviews: https://skarnet.org/software/s6/ https://skarnet.org/software/s6/ https://jdebp.eu/Softwares/nosh/guide/introduction.html https://jdebp.eu/Softwares/nosh/guide/introduction.html The original daemontools: https://cr.yp.to/daemontools/faq/create.html#why https://cr.yp.to/daemontools/faq/create.html#why I'll let others decide whether these are better or worse than systemd. I go with whatever my distro would give me, since picking a different init system is too much work...
ultraism 7y ago
There was a switch away from SysV init for particular reasons, not change for the sake of change.
- geggam 7y ago
  You know, everyone says this but every server I worked on (several thousands) which used sysvinit I cant remember any issues with startups that couldn't easily be scripted around. I still dont understand what issues are fixed with systemd and I am aware of many it has created.
  - Someone 7y ago
    I am not convinced every sysadmin could ‘easily’ script around init issues on the servers they manage, but I’ll give you that. The real issue isn’t with servers, it’s with desktop systems and laptops. When users plug in a USB sound card or plug their laptop into a dock, they don’t want to (and likely couldn’t) “easily script around” that; they expect an audio device, network connection, video card to be created without any user intervention, and go away when devices get unplugged. Making a set of init scripts (and surrounding unload and reload scripts) robust against insertion and removal of any of many different devices isn’t easy even for init script gurus, and would lead to duplicated code for detecting and handling the various load/unload conditions. That, I think is the primary reason Apple went with launchd. Systemd took that idea. There’s nothing wrong with that. The main issues with systemd, IMO are a) initially it was buggy, and b) tremendous scope creep.
    - geggam 7y ago
      >The real issue isn’t with servers, it’s with desktop systems and laptops. When users plug in a USB sound card or plug their laptop into a dock, they don’t want to (and likely couldn’t) “easily script around” that; they expect an audio device, network connection, video card to be created without any user intervention, and go away when devices get unplugged. Bingo ! Folks who know, and I mean really understand how to run servers know how to script init. Folks who use Linux on the laptop / Admin Ubuntu do not and systemd makes them able to do stuff "most of the time" There is no reason to force systemd as the default for servers. You dont plug things into servers and in fact you dont want some service monitoring servers so someone can stick something in a server and start rooting around it.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

LinuxBender 7y ago

For me it was the scope creep. Systemd is turning "init" into a framework of all the vulnerable and bad ideas that Microsoft moved away from after Win95/XP. binfmt mount, intercepting and changing the behavior of DNS, polkit implementation, changing user authentication, so much more than I could put here. There are many desktop concepts being shimmed into servers that are simply not appropriate for a lean mean web machine. The good bits that systemd brought into the mainstream such as cgroups and lxc do not require systemd. They can be implemented independently. The watchdog timers and unit files were not a new concept either and did not require systemd.

barbecue_sauce 7y ago
Is it correct to even say that systemd "brought" cgroups and lxc? They seem like fairly independent projects.
- simcop2387 7y ago
  systemd did bring them mainstream, but yea cgroups were around for years before systemd was a thing. But they were mostly independently managed by some small daemons that did things based off rules and other things like that mostly. Systemd changed how they got used, primarily because multiple management systems working with them tends to cause issues, but using them for low impact isolation and tracking of daemons automatically really turned them from something you'd independently setup to something that brings a lot of utility for just about every use-case everywhere. You can still use cgroups independently with systemd, but it's recommended that you use a service and the delegate option to have systemd create a cgroup hierarchy and also know that it shouldn't mess with it after creating it. This lets you have your cake and eat it too if you have a case that systemd doesn't handle (I'm working on a setup with this myself for a coding sandbox setup).
  - djsumdog 7y ago
    I think Docker had a bigger influence on cgroup use than systemd.

efiecho 7y ago

Sigh, this argument just has to come up in every discussion on Systemd. Anyone who dare to be critical about Systemd is apparently just a Luddite afraid of change. You know what, I have no problems with change at all, only when the change is to something worse.

smitty1e 7y ago
There doesn't seem to be any single, general, perfect answer. I use systemd across distros, and am now confused when I run into an old SysV system. When I'm sufficiently advanced to bump into one of these corner cases, it will be a Good Problem To Have. The market penetration of systemd is about as good an empirical validation as can be had. How soon until it's codified in Posix?
thayne 7y ago
Do you have concrete evidence that systemd is in fact worse from a technical perspective? I'll readily admit that systemd isn't perfect, but my overall experience is that it is better in many ways to its predecessors, and did solve real problems. And when I referred to "systemd hate" I was not referring to healthy criticism, but to those who take very chance to claim that systemd never should have been invented and their init system of choice is clearly superior. Rather than, say trying to make systemd better, or make their init system fix the problems that systemd was designed to remedy.

agumonkey 7y ago

Something bothers me when they talk about fear of change. Some changes are consensual, some are mostly agreed upon organically and then you have cases like systemd who fueled lengthy debates. I don't like to ignore this as "fear of change".