4 ms·

Not made by Microsoft, but 'embrace, extend, extinguish' which is a strategy of these folks I saw coming years ago, will no doubt surprise many...

not_your_vase 3y ago
> Not made by Microsoft Poettering has been a Microsoft employee for like a year now.
aftbit 3y ago
Yeah I think we all saw it coming. At least kdbus didn't happen.
op00to 3y ago
… you’re mourning SysV init scripts? why?
- BirAdam 3y ago
  Because it will one day be “invented” again as a “scriptable init”
- cellularmitosis 3y ago
  I mourn it. I've been typing '/etc/init.d/apache2 restart' for about twenty years now. Why change it? Would it really be that hard to have a symlink from /etc/init.d/apache2 to /bin/systemctl and teach systemctl to do the right thing?
  - viraptor 3y ago
    There's a generic wrapper which existed for many years "service apache2 restart" will work regardless of the init type. You can also put "systemctl $1 apache2" in /etc/init.d/apache2 and keep using it. It's really not a big issue.
  - kaba0 3y ago
    Be the change you want to see.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
  If nothing else, sysv scripts were conceptually really simple to the point that you look at it and think "oh, it's just a shell script; I could actually just sit down and reimplement the whole system in a weekend". In fact, much of my personal dislike of systemd is that it started getting popular right as I was having that revelation and got to watch a pile of shell scripts that I could just pop open in my editor get replaced with an all-encompassing black box (yes, I know it's open source, but "you could go find the source and try to read C" is not the same as "vi /etc/init.d/foo".
  - ilyt 3y ago
    That's a lie https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36513889#36514362 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36513889#36514362 > In fact, much of my personal dislike of systemd is that it started getting popular right as I was having that revelation and got to watch a pile of shell scripts that I could just pop open in my editor get replaced with an all-encompassing black box (yes, I know it's open source, but "you could go find the source and try to read C" is not the same as "vi /etc/init.d/foo". That theoretically is a disadvantage but practically ~90% of the systemd scripts are "point at binary, pick user, group and work dir" and entirely trivial to understand; distro ones often are a bit fancier with limiting app capabilities but those are far harder to do in init script in the first place. For vast majority of apps it's literally just 'here is binary, run it' And more important part is that I DON'T NEED TO EDIT ORIGINAL if I just want to add something. I can take 100% stock distro .service file, add Restart=always RestartSec=60s and now any time app dies it will auto-restart. Or add proxy environment, or anything else, via just override files, no need to litter our repositories with modified init scripts that just have like 3 lines changed.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
      > That's a lie Oh, well now that you've called me a liar I suppose I have no choice but to agree with you. (/s) Here, let's have a worked example! https://git.alpinelinux.org/aports/tree/main/nginx/nginx.initd https://git.alpinelinux.org/aports/tree/main/nginx/nginx.ini... In that entire file, there is exactly one function that exceeds 3 lines; the "upgrade" command, which AFAIK doesn't exist in systemd-land. > That theoretically is a disadvantage but practically ~90% of the systemd scripts are "point at binary, pick user, group and work dir" and entirely trivial to understand; distro ones often are a bit fancier with limiting app capabilities but those are far harder to do in init script in the first place. Partially true; I'll happily agree that 90% of daemons are the simple case. Of course, that's true regardless of the service manager in play; 90% of systemd service files are trivial, and 90% of initscripts are trivial. I'll also agree that there's an advantage to making the easy stuff common; if I were actually writing initscripts for a distro I'd have them start by including a library (probably `. /etc/init.d/_common.sh` or something like that) and then most of them would also just define the ~3 needed variables and use the default function implementations. And it would still be easier to follow than a compiled version.
oconnor663 3y ago
I get that the real purpose of invoking "embrace, extend, extinguish" is to suggest shadiness and self-interested motives. Which, sure, you're allowed to suggest that. Maybe you're right, who knows. But actually taking those words at face value...in what sense could systemd be described as "embracing" or "extending" any init system that came before it? Wasn't it always a from-the-ground-up different thing?
- shrubble 3y ago
  Is systemd solely an init system? Did it extend its scope far beyond that?
  - nerdponx 3y ago
    It's been openly and deliberately much more than an init system for the decade or so that I've been using Linux.
    - shrubble 3y ago
      Myself I first installed Linux in 1994, and there are many people on HN that were using it and other Unix systems well before that. It might be that the time of "when you started using Linux" plays into views of systemd ...
eikenberry 3y ago
In this case it was used as an instrument of good. The strategy isn't inherently bad, it is how it is used and using it to kill Sys-V init was a very good thing.
panick21_ 3y ago
[flagged]
viraptor 3y ago
Yes... Taking over the lucrative business of making the init system. That must be their goal ; ) There's really no extinguish here - other init systems still exist for those who have reasons to use it.
ilyt 3y ago
Instead of writing init scripts (that are far too often done wrong compared to what some lunatics say "ITS SIMPLE", even by big software packages) you just put like 5-10 lines in a text file (hell, aside from boilerplate/info about service you need like... one in many cases) How's that "extinguising" anything?
- nerdponx 3y ago
  It's not, but they also never "embraced" the old init scripts either, they just supported it for backward compatibility. That said, there are a lot of legitimate grievances out there against Systemd. But it has little to do with using unit files instead of scripts.
  - ilyt 3y ago
    yeah like journalctl and especially its unfortunate useless binary format
kaba0 3y ago
Can we stop these fking stupid takes? It’s like in every wayland and systemd thread..

not_your_vase 3y ago

> Not made by Microsoft Poettering has been a Microsoft employee for like a year now.

aftbit 3y ago

Yeah I think we all saw it coming. At least kdbus didn't happen.

op00to 3y ago

… you’re mourning SysV init scripts? why?

BirAdam 3y ago
Because it will one day be “invented” again as a “scriptable init”
cellularmitosis 3y ago
I mourn it. I've been typing '/etc/init.d/apache2 restart' for about twenty years now. Why change it? Would it really be that hard to have a symlink from /etc/init.d/apache2 to /bin/systemctl and teach systemctl to do the right thing?
- viraptor 3y ago
  There's a generic wrapper which existed for many years "service apache2 restart" will work regardless of the init type. You can also put "systemctl $1 apache2" in /etc/init.d/apache2 and keep using it. It's really not a big issue.
- kaba0 3y ago
  Be the change you want to see.
yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
If nothing else, sysv scripts were conceptually really simple to the point that you look at it and think "oh, it's just a shell script; I could actually just sit down and reimplement the whole system in a weekend". In fact, much of my personal dislike of systemd is that it started getting popular right as I was having that revelation and got to watch a pile of shell scripts that I could just pop open in my editor get replaced with an all-encompassing black box (yes, I know it's open source, but "you could go find the source and try to read C" is not the same as "vi /etc/init.d/foo".
- ilyt 3y ago
  That's a lie https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36513889#36514362 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36513889#36514362 > In fact, much of my personal dislike of systemd is that it started getting popular right as I was having that revelation and got to watch a pile of shell scripts that I could just pop open in my editor get replaced with an all-encompassing black box (yes, I know it's open source, but "you could go find the source and try to read C" is not the same as "vi /etc/init.d/foo". That theoretically is a disadvantage but practically ~90% of the systemd scripts are "point at binary, pick user, group and work dir" and entirely trivial to understand; distro ones often are a bit fancier with limiting app capabilities but those are far harder to do in init script in the first place. For vast majority of apps it's literally just 'here is binary, run it' And more important part is that I DON'T NEED TO EDIT ORIGINAL if I just want to add something. I can take 100% stock distro .service file, add Restart=always RestartSec=60s and now any time app dies it will auto-restart. Or add proxy environment, or anything else, via just override files, no need to litter our repositories with modified init scripts that just have like 3 lines changed.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
    > That's a lie Oh, well now that you've called me a liar I suppose I have no choice but to agree with you. (/s) Here, let's have a worked example! https://git.alpinelinux.org/aports/tree/main/nginx/nginx.initd https://git.alpinelinux.org/aports/tree/main/nginx/nginx.ini... In that entire file, there is exactly one function that exceeds 3 lines; the "upgrade" command, which AFAIK doesn't exist in systemd-land. > That theoretically is a disadvantage but practically ~90% of the systemd scripts are "point at binary, pick user, group and work dir" and entirely trivial to understand; distro ones often are a bit fancier with limiting app capabilities but those are far harder to do in init script in the first place. Partially true; I'll happily agree that 90% of daemons are the simple case. Of course, that's true regardless of the service manager in play; 90% of systemd service files are trivial, and 90% of initscripts are trivial. I'll also agree that there's an advantage to making the easy stuff common; if I were actually writing initscripts for a distro I'd have them start by including a library (probably `. /etc/init.d/_common.sh` or something like that) and then most of them would also just define the ~3 needed variables and use the default function implementations. And it would still be easier to follow than a compiled version.

oconnor663 3y ago

I get that the real purpose of invoking "embrace, extend, extinguish" is to suggest shadiness and self-interested motives. Which, sure, you're allowed to suggest that. Maybe you're right, who knows. But actually taking those words at face value...in what sense could systemd be described as "embracing" or "extending" any init system that came before it? Wasn't it always a from-the-ground-up different thing?

shrubble 3y ago
Is systemd solely an init system? Did it extend its scope far beyond that?
- nerdponx 3y ago
  It's been openly and deliberately much more than an init system for the decade or so that I've been using Linux.
  - shrubble 3y ago
    Myself I first installed Linux in 1994, and there are many people on HN that were using it and other Unix systems well before that. It might be that the time of "when you started using Linux" plays into views of systemd ...

eikenberry 3y ago

In this case it was used as an instrument of good. The strategy isn't inherently bad, it is how it is used and using it to kill Sys-V init was a very good thing.

panick21_ 3y ago

[flagged]

viraptor 3y ago

Yes... Taking over the lucrative business of making the init system. That must be their goal ; ) There's really no extinguish here - other init systems still exist for those who have reasons to use it.

ilyt 3y ago

Instead of writing init scripts (that are far too often done wrong compared to what some lunatics say "ITS SIMPLE", even by big software packages) you just put like 5-10 lines in a text file (hell, aside from boilerplate/info about service you need like... one in many cases) How's that "extinguising" anything?

nerdponx 3y ago
It's not, but they also never "embraced" the old init scripts either, they just supported it for backward compatibility. That said, there are a lot of legitimate grievances out there against Systemd. But it has little to do with using unit files instead of scripts.
- ilyt 3y ago
  yeah like journalctl and especially its unfortunate useless binary format

kaba0 3y ago

Can we stop these fking stupid takes? It’s like in every wayland and systemd thread..