7 ms·
At this point any system that is running this should not be called "UNIX derived" or "UNIX like" as systemd has subsumed all of the pre-existing architecture ar
by ChuckMcM 5y ago
At this point any system that is running this should not be called "UNIX derived" or "UNIX like" as systemd has subsumed all of the pre-existing architecture around system startup and management. Not arguing if that is a good or bad thing just saying we should stop putting systemd managed systems in the 'UNIX' column just like we don't put Windows NT systems in the UNIX column.
- tssva 5y agoShould macOS and Solaris also not be considered "UNIX derived" or "UNIX like" because of their use of launched and SMF?
- ddingus 5y agoAgreed, also no judgement here as well. I propose: "UNIX-ish" or Sysd type Linux. Shit, what am I thinking! GNU LINUX was the older discussion and development. SYSTEMD LINUX is likely most applicable nomenclature, given current development.
- traverseda 5y agoWell UNIX is "a pun on multics", so how about EUNICS? The S can stand for systemd.
- ddingus 5y agoLol I used to care a lot more. Frankly, what I do now is make sure I can use an OS and that I am depending on more portable software where I can. I find myself in Windows, OSX, and Linux land, maybe now I should just say Systemd Linux land and pretty much have something other than the OS to worry about. Ideally, the OS gives me few worries.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- nightfly 5y agoSolaris's init/service/network management is/was just as complicated and it was definitely still UNIX.
- p_l 5y agoSolaris 10 system is IMHO less complicated than systemd mess, and definitely easier to debug when things go wrong (and the documentation doesn't lie)
- josephpoon 5y agoI'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, systemd/Linux, or as I’ve recently taken to calling it, systemd plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning systemd system made useful by the systemd init system, IPC layer, and other vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX. Many computer users run a modified version of the systemd system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of systemd which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the systemd system, developed by Red Hat. There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine’s resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the systemd operating system: the whole system is basically systemd with Linux added, or systemd/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of systemd/Linux. (/s)
- ChuckMcM 5y agoOkay, that made my wife come in to see what I was laughing about.
- ChuckNorris89 5y agoWould anyone care to explain to someone who isn't 1337 in the inner workings of Linux, why systemd makes modern Linux not very UNIXY anymore and why everyone seems to hate it to death?
- theteapot 5y agoThis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy#Do_One_Thing_and_Do_It_Well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy#Do_One_Thing_a...
- lbotos 5y agoLinux via Unix: Do one thing, and do it well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy Systemd: Not that. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29670980 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29670980 for an example.
- Spivak 5y agoI really don’t think having timers is the best example of this. systemd at it’s core is a resource monitor — a tool that sets up and babysits different types of things — processes, mounts, sockets, scheduled tasks, devices, etc. and manages the dependencies that exist between them. It fits right in with the other stuff.
- 1_player 5y agoThe startup scripts that were in use before systemd did one thing but they certainly didn't do it well.
- ddingus 5y agoBasically, systemd is a big binary that manages the system. That used to be many discrete programs and shell scripts and files. There is a lot of philosophy to consider from there.
- fsh 5y agoOn my laptop, systemd consists of 60 different small binaries. Looks pretty UNIXy to me (maybe even too much so).
- 3np 5y agoI don’t follow how a new startup/system management architecture makes it “not UNIX”. We do put OS X in the UNIX column, after all. POSIX and all that.
- fsflover 5y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface. AFAIK none of these describes systemd.
- 3np 5y agoI don’t see why something that is derived from UNIX has to have to the UNIX philosophy. Here’s a thought I haven’t evaluated fully: can the same thing be said about the Linux kernel? At the end of the day I think some of the major points of criticisms of systemd (moving fast and breaking things for example) are valid, however I still see it as a net gain. Fortunately there are distros like Devuan, OpenWRT and Alpine for those who want something different.
- diffeomorphism 5y agoThat seems to describe systemd extremely well. Lots of little tools like networkd, homed, journald... that do one thing, do it well and work together. And using text+time stamps.
- fsflover 5y agoAFAIK the systemd parts don't have well-defined interfaces. At least I've never seen any independent replacement of any of those small parts, as opposed to replacement of whole systemd.
- kaba0 5y agoDo you browse the web like `curl | render-http`? UNIX philosophy is not a law. For complex problem domains separating it into multiple parts is not always possible and only makes the whole thing more complex. System init is quite a complex problem domain.
- jart 5y agoWell the name System D implies a manifest destiny to conquer System V (i.e. UNIX) because D=500 and V=5 in Roman numerals. Why else would they choose the name? Also you should call it GNU/Systemd.