5 ms·

The arrogance of Lennart has something to do with it. The way he tends to disregard real bugs as not a bug, since he and his production are perfect and always r

The arrogance of Lennart has something to do with it. The way he tends to disregard real bugs as not a bug, since he and his production are perfect and always right. Numerous cases of that. Then the security aspect of a jack of all trades process running as one that controls every other process. Reading logs after a panic and rebooting to check them is a pain in the ass without journald on the chrooting system, reading and parsing logs the same. There are many reasons to not like systemd and the creator, who incidently after leaving the GNU/Linux is now working for the same company that sought to destroy it, Microsoft. The above doesn't represent my personal opinion, it's a representation of what reasons people might have.

TacticalCoder 4y ago
> There are many reasons to not like systemd and the creator, who incidently after leaving the GNU/Linux is now working for the same company that sought to destroy it, Microsoft. I only learned about that a few days ago, here on HN (some thread or some old comment). It is completely insane and gives lots of fuel to the systemd haters. I do run both Debian (systemd) and Devuan (a Debian fork with all the systemd stuff removed). I use Devuan on my main desktop PC and I've got exactly zero problem. That's the thing: many "sell" systemd as some mandatory machinery but it simply ain't. Ultra-light containers (like Alpine-based ones) run fine (and faster) without systemd. Desktops do run fine without systemd (I'm running Devuan on my workstation and Debian on my laptop: it's basically the same experience). For certain types of servers I can understand some see benefits in running systemd. Neither IBM / Red Hat nor Microsoft should be those setting the terms of what is or is not an acceptable "PID 1" for Linux. The day Linux becomes "systemd Linux" is the day I'll switch to a BSD. I don't mind that systemd exists as long as people still have the choice to run a non-systemd Linux. The kernel should be orthogonal to systemd and there should be Linux distros packaged without systemd. And systemd proponents shouldn't go out of their way to try to prevent non systemd Linux from existing.
- atonse 4y ago
  > It is completely insane and gives lots of fuel to the systemd haters. Sorry, what exactly is the issue with a bunch of Linux maintainers working for Microsoft? Is there still some sort of collective adjustment issue with Microsoft being a major backer of Linux now? If the maintainers themselves (people who have dedicated their lives to progressing Linux) are ok with it, why does anyone else have an issue? And what kind of fuel would it add? That systemd has corporate backers?
  - b112 4y ago
    And what kind of fuel would it add? That systemd has corporate backers? Systemd was 100% created by redhat, so no, corporate backers aren't the problem. The real problem is that Microsoft has historically tried to destroy linux, and beyond that, has a huge history of FUD and embrace and extinguish. Many in the OSS community consider Microsoft to be pure evil. And if their historical behaviour is any indication, nothing they do with/for Linux will turn out well, or good for the community.
    - PoignardAzur 4y ago
      > The real problem is that Microsoft has historically tried to destroy linux, and beyond that, has a huge history of FUD and embrace and extinguish. And now they're one of the major backers. All the work is being done in the open, so it's not like there's a nefarious hidden agenda there (an agenda that would have needed to somehow stay dormant for 10+ years). The idea that working for Microsoft is something dirty that should be shunned for open source just doesn't make practical sense.
      - b112 4y ago
        Pulseaudio was developed in the open. So was systemd, and many take issue with that. And embrace and extend can exist in OSS models. Microsoft is dirty, and it is dirt they cannot wash off in a mere few years. If they behave correctly for 20 years, as long as they behaved in a literally evil fashion, then maybe they have reformed.
- Maursault 4y ago
  > and there should be Linux distros packaged without systemd. systemd should be an optional package on all distros. Shoving it down throats is one of the valid major criticisms. What should have happened instead is systemd was optional on Debian at setup and Debian was forked to include it by default. It is simply backwards that Debian needed to be forked for purity. Duvuan shouldn't need to exist, but it very much does. The entire ideology of openness and freedom has been turned on its head. Instead of "what is best for everyone is good enough for me," has become with entitlement "what is best for me is good enough for everyone." Maybe you like the way you do things, but would any here really insist on forcing everyone else to use your methods and no others? systemd, among other valid criticisms, is unmistakably fascist. For anyone but parent, don't just be thin-skinned and downvote my comment because you have allowed yourself to be insulted. Be courageous and disagree with me if you can. How is systemd not fascist?
  - piperswe 4y ago
    The primary definition of fascism, according to the Merriam Webster dictionary, is this: > a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition systemd has nothing to do with nation or race. There are much better words than fascism to describe Debian's prioritization of systemd.
    - Maursault 4y ago
      Thank you, and a worthy attempt, but as you have defined Fascism, the political movement and a noun and proper name, as opposed to the adjective fascist, as in advocation of an authoritarian regime and in opposition of and intolerant of opposing views, and in modern definitions, a synonym of "bullying," your post is somewhat of a straw man. Obviously I was not suggesting that systemd was literally Nazi software. What I was saying is that systemd, as an unnecessarily complex machine in itself as it proceeds to annex other parts of the system, is autocratic, strongly regimented and centralized, suppresses opposition, and subordinates individual interests.
- b112 4y ago
  And systemd proponents shouldn't go out of their way to try to prevent non systemd Linux from existing. All the changes to gnome, which depended 100% upon systemd at the time, were pushed by redhat, gnome contributers. This one of the biggest reasons given, for getting systemd into debian at the time. When systemd was being pushed origionally, fast boot times, predictable names, and a few other things were big reasons. Yet debian already had parallel init booting, and already had predictable interface names. Systemd has done almost nothing for debian, and has many drawbacks, as you say. Systemd was a redhat solution, to redhat issues, and redhat used its power in the community to force it through. There were a lot of outright lies, politics, and more at implementation time. And you're right, part of it was redhat wanting to force systemd, and no other.
  - effie 4y ago
    But debian has chosen to adopt systemd, so at least some substantial part of Debian developers preferred going with it to keeping the status quo with sysvinit. Maybe they were badly influence by Redhat/Poettering, but it was their call.
    - rainbow29822 4y ago
      Of course they were influenced by the author of programs they use. They were also influenced by Linus Torvalds when they decided to use his kernel. I don't see any problems with this. That's what you do when you make something that you're proud of. You go around to other people and try to convince them to use it.
rfmoz 4y ago
About the bugs, the Github have 1.8k issues open. That makes me think, is there a way to know what are the projects with more open issues on Github?
- jcranmer 4y ago
  Just some large projects whose bug trackers are on github: * LLVM: 19,219 open issues * Rust compiler: 8,580 open issues * Python: 6,693 open issues The number of open issues isn't a particularly good indicator of program quality.
denton-scratch 4y ago
> who incidently after leaving the GNU/Linux is now working for the same company that sought to destroy it, Microsoft. Woah, I missed that news! I don't imagine he'll stop writing Linux software though.
WastingMyTime89 4y ago
> Numerous cases of that. Like when? Because I have interacted with projects where Lennart is part of the admin team and from where I stand it’s all in your head. Both bugs and security are taken seriously. > The above doesn't represent my personal opinion, it's a representation of what reasons people might have. I admire the courage you display in standing for your opinion.
- labawi 4y ago
  I don't know about your experiences, but systemd is leaking preconceived notions and self-imposed limitations like a broken sieve where one is left to sift manually through documentation and bug-reports, collecting and evaluating rules, exceptions and idiosyncratic notions to determine whether systemd will do what one wants. Latest example: I have a service I want running, so I set it to Restart=always. Read the long Restart= documentations - seems ok. Does it work? Failure 1: Well.. you also need appropriate RestartSec/StartLimitInterval. Ok, I I set it up. Does it work? Failure 2: Well.. restart doesn't actually apply to failed dependencies, so .. don't have dependencies that fail, ok? That's not a bug. [1][2] [1] https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/1312 https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/1312 [2] https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/213185/restarting-systemd-service-on-dependency-failure https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/213185/restarting-s...
lotharcable 4y ago
> There are many reasons to not like systemd and the creator, who incidently after leaving the GNU/Linux is now working for the same company that sought to destroy it, Microsoft. Yeah, well... Microsoft is probably soon to be one of the bigger Linux developers out there. As the profit slowly drains out of the desktop their core business model is going to be increasingly dependent on open source and Linux. Just in case anybody reading this is a big fanboy of Linux... This is what winning feels like.

TacticalCoder 4y ago

> There are many reasons to not like systemd and the creator, who incidently after leaving the GNU/Linux is now working for the same company that sought to destroy it, Microsoft. I only learned about that a few days ago, here on HN (some thread or some old comment). It is completely insane and gives lots of fuel to the systemd haters. I do run both Debian (systemd) and Devuan (a Debian fork with all the systemd stuff removed). I use Devuan on my main desktop PC and I've got exactly zero problem. That's the thing: many "sell" systemd as some mandatory machinery but it simply ain't. Ultra-light containers (like Alpine-based ones) run fine (and faster) without systemd. Desktops do run fine without systemd (I'm running Devuan on my workstation and Debian on my laptop: it's basically the same experience). For certain types of servers I can understand some see benefits in running systemd. Neither IBM / Red Hat nor Microsoft should be those setting the terms of what is or is not an acceptable "PID 1" for Linux. The day Linux becomes "systemd Linux" is the day I'll switch to a BSD. I don't mind that systemd exists as long as people still have the choice to run a non-systemd Linux. The kernel should be orthogonal to systemd and there should be Linux distros packaged without systemd. And systemd proponents shouldn't go out of their way to try to prevent non systemd Linux from existing.

atonse 4y ago
> It is completely insane and gives lots of fuel to the systemd haters. Sorry, what exactly is the issue with a bunch of Linux maintainers working for Microsoft? Is there still some sort of collective adjustment issue with Microsoft being a major backer of Linux now? If the maintainers themselves (people who have dedicated their lives to progressing Linux) are ok with it, why does anyone else have an issue? And what kind of fuel would it add? That systemd has corporate backers?
- b112 4y ago
  And what kind of fuel would it add? That systemd has corporate backers? Systemd was 100% created by redhat, so no, corporate backers aren't the problem. The real problem is that Microsoft has historically tried to destroy linux, and beyond that, has a huge history of FUD and embrace and extinguish. Many in the OSS community consider Microsoft to be pure evil. And if their historical behaviour is any indication, nothing they do with/for Linux will turn out well, or good for the community.
  - PoignardAzur 4y ago
    > The real problem is that Microsoft has historically tried to destroy linux, and beyond that, has a huge history of FUD and embrace and extinguish. And now they're one of the major backers. All the work is being done in the open, so it's not like there's a nefarious hidden agenda there (an agenda that would have needed to somehow stay dormant for 10+ years). The idea that working for Microsoft is something dirty that should be shunned for open source just doesn't make practical sense.
    - b112 4y ago
      Pulseaudio was developed in the open. So was systemd, and many take issue with that. And embrace and extend can exist in OSS models. Microsoft is dirty, and it is dirt they cannot wash off in a mere few years. If they behave correctly for 20 years, as long as they behaved in a literally evil fashion, then maybe they have reformed.
Maursault 4y ago
> and there should be Linux distros packaged without systemd. systemd should be an optional package on all distros. Shoving it down throats is one of the valid major criticisms. What should have happened instead is systemd was optional on Debian at setup and Debian was forked to include it by default. It is simply backwards that Debian needed to be forked for purity. Duvuan shouldn't need to exist, but it very much does. The entire ideology of openness and freedom has been turned on its head. Instead of "what is best for everyone is good enough for me," has become with entitlement "what is best for me is good enough for everyone." Maybe you like the way you do things, but would any here really insist on forcing everyone else to use your methods and no others? systemd, among other valid criticisms, is unmistakably fascist. For anyone but parent, don't just be thin-skinned and downvote my comment because you have allowed yourself to be insulted. Be courageous and disagree with me if you can. How is systemd not fascist?
- piperswe 4y ago
  The primary definition of fascism, according to the Merriam Webster dictionary, is this: > a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition systemd has nothing to do with nation or race. There are much better words than fascism to describe Debian's prioritization of systemd.
  - Maursault 4y ago
    Thank you, and a worthy attempt, but as you have defined Fascism, the political movement and a noun and proper name, as opposed to the adjective fascist, as in advocation of an authoritarian regime and in opposition of and intolerant of opposing views, and in modern definitions, a synonym of "bullying," your post is somewhat of a straw man. Obviously I was not suggesting that systemd was literally Nazi software. What I was saying is that systemd, as an unnecessarily complex machine in itself as it proceeds to annex other parts of the system, is autocratic, strongly regimented and centralized, suppresses opposition, and subordinates individual interests.
b112 4y ago
And systemd proponents shouldn't go out of their way to try to prevent non systemd Linux from existing. All the changes to gnome, which depended 100% upon systemd at the time, were pushed by redhat, gnome contributers. This one of the biggest reasons given, for getting systemd into debian at the time. When systemd was being pushed origionally, fast boot times, predictable names, and a few other things were big reasons. Yet debian already had parallel init booting, and already had predictable interface names. Systemd has done almost nothing for debian, and has many drawbacks, as you say. Systemd was a redhat solution, to redhat issues, and redhat used its power in the community to force it through. There were a lot of outright lies, politics, and more at implementation time. And you're right, part of it was redhat wanting to force systemd, and no other.
- effie 4y ago
  But debian has chosen to adopt systemd, so at least some substantial part of Debian developers preferred going with it to keeping the status quo with sysvinit. Maybe they were badly influence by Redhat/Poettering, but it was their call.
  - rainbow29822 4y ago
    Of course they were influenced by the author of programs they use. They were also influenced by Linus Torvalds when they decided to use his kernel. I don't see any problems with this. That's what you do when you make something that you're proud of. You go around to other people and try to convince them to use it.

rfmoz 4y ago

About the bugs, the Github have 1.8k issues open. That makes me think, is there a way to know what are the projects with more open issues on Github?

jcranmer 4y ago
Just some large projects whose bug trackers are on github: * LLVM: 19,219 open issues * Rust compiler: 8,580 open issues * Python: 6,693 open issues The number of open issues isn't a particularly good indicator of program quality.

denton-scratch 4y ago

> who incidently after leaving the GNU/Linux is now working for the same company that sought to destroy it, Microsoft. Woah, I missed that news! I don't imagine he'll stop writing Linux software though.

WastingMyTime89 4y ago

> Numerous cases of that. Like when? Because I have interacted with projects where Lennart is part of the admin team and from where I stand it’s all in your head. Both bugs and security are taken seriously. > The above doesn't represent my personal opinion, it's a representation of what reasons people might have. I admire the courage you display in standing for your opinion.

labawi 4y ago
I don't know about your experiences, but systemd is leaking preconceived notions and self-imposed limitations like a broken sieve where one is left to sift manually through documentation and bug-reports, collecting and evaluating rules, exceptions and idiosyncratic notions to determine whether systemd will do what one wants. Latest example: I have a service I want running, so I set it to Restart=always. Read the long Restart= documentations - seems ok. Does it work? Failure 1: Well.. you also need appropriate RestartSec/StartLimitInterval. Ok, I I set it up. Does it work? Failure 2: Well.. restart doesn't actually apply to failed dependencies, so .. don't have dependencies that fail, ok? That's not a bug. [1][2] [1] https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/1312 https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/1312 [2] https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/213185/restarting-systemd-service-on-dependency-failure https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/213185/restarting-s...

lotharcable 4y ago

> There are many reasons to not like systemd and the creator, who incidently after leaving the GNU/Linux is now working for the same company that sought to destroy it, Microsoft. Yeah, well... Microsoft is probably soon to be one of the bigger Linux developers out there. As the profit slowly drains out of the desktop their core business model is going to be increasingly dependent on open source and Linux. Just in case anybody reading this is a big fanboy of Linux... This is what winning feels like.