5 ms·

It's been fashionable to hate on systemd, but I definitely prefer it to the hodgepodge of inconsistent init scripts, logging hacks, and bespoke process monitors

by ttfkam 3y ago

It's been fashionable to hate on systemd, but I definitely prefer it to the hodgepodge of inconsistent init scripts, logging hacks, and bespoke process monitors that preceded it. init.d was familiar to graybeards (like myself), but I'm loathe to consider them a superior solution.

tetris11 3y ago
I started on initrc but came to maturity on systemd, and though systemd does simplify the process of inspecting running tasks, its sheer lack-of-fun of getting those processes running in the first place always puts me off hacking my system to better suit my whims. It forces you to think of stability instead of creativity, and that might be great for people who value predictable things in their lives, but it stands rigidly in the way of fun.
- WastingMyTime89 3y ago
  It’s an init system and a process manager. How exactly can it be fun? Technically, I guess it’s interesting to design if you are an expert but as a user, having to use creativity is the last thing I want from low level pieces of my OS. If you want to tinker with OS design, you can always install Minix in a VM.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > It’s an init system and a process manager. How exactly can it be fun? I don't know about fun, but different people find different things fun. I find systemd to be often irritating, and sometimes infuriating. It has not made my life easier at all. Just the opposite. So, in that sense anyway, I'd say systemd is much less fun.
- rhn_mk1 3y ago
  As someone who had to mess with init scripts for a couple of distros for someone who requested it, this was not far from my idea of pure anti-fun. Every distro did init scripts in different, exciting ways, so I had to start over from reading the not-inconsequential docs for each one. The init systems come with some high-level helpers, but only if you want to use the shell, which is very unfun in its own right.
- Izkata 3y ago
  For me it was all about ease of access when investigating why something isn't working.
- striking 3y ago
  Personally, I tend to have more fun when all of the other parts of my system don't need to be fixed while I work on adding new stuff.
jjoonathan 3y ago
100%. My toes hurt every time Lennart Poettering steps on them, but every time I dig into the "why" it turns out to not only have been a good reason but a couldn't have worked any other way reason. If someone hadn't dragged Linux kicking and screaming into the 21st century, the arbitrary choices made in the definition of a config file format 50 years ago would cripple the ability to deliver basic features 50 years later in a manner that was robust/isolated/performant/etc.
- johnklos 3y ago
  > good reason I've been looking for these for years: the reasons that might justify the removal of basic functionality and interoperability with other tools. Got any sources?
  - freedomben 3y ago
    Lennart's "Rethinking PID 1" was highly enlightening for me[1]. The LWN discussion on it was also really good[2]. [1]: http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html [2]: https://lwn.net/Articles/385536/ https://lwn.net/Articles/385536/
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
VancouverMan 3y ago
> It's been fashionable to hate on systemd, ... From what I can see, the dislike exists for far more practical reasons. In my experience, it has a tendency to break in ways that the numerous other init systems I've used over the decades never did. When it does break, it can easily prevent a computer from booting, which makes that computer pretty much useless until the problem is fixed. I've found that it has often been far more difficult, and takes far more effort, to debug and fix problems with it than with other init systems. Its tendency to become more invasive over time has also opened the door for even more problems involving it, well beyond its role as an init system. Given the large number of bug reports, questions, complaints, and so on about it that I've seen over the years, people don't dislike it just to be "fashionable". They dislike it because it's making their lives unnecessarily painful.
mikepurvis 3y ago
I've liked it from the beginning (coming from upstart), but I think my one frustration is that you can't run systemd in an unprivileged container— and this is not simply an implementation gap, it's an intentional design choice: https://systemd.io/CONTAINER_INTERFACE/ https://systemd.io/CONTAINER_INTERFACE/ You can argue that a process manager for an unprivileged container should be more like supervisor or systemd user services. However, it would be really convenient to be able to globally install unit files (say, using a deb package), and have them work whether it's bare metal, a VM, or a container.

by ttfkam 3y ago

tetris11 3y ago

I started on initrc but came to maturity on systemd, and though systemd does simplify the process of inspecting running tasks, its sheer lack-of-fun of getting those processes running in the first place always puts me off hacking my system to better suit my whims. It forces you to think of stability instead of creativity, and that might be great for people who value predictable things in their lives, but it stands rigidly in the way of fun.

WastingMyTime89 3y ago
It’s an init system and a process manager. How exactly can it be fun? Technically, I guess it’s interesting to design if you are an expert but as a user, having to use creativity is the last thing I want from low level pieces of my OS. If you want to tinker with OS design, you can always install Minix in a VM.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > It’s an init system and a process manager. How exactly can it be fun? I don't know about fun, but different people find different things fun. I find systemd to be often irritating, and sometimes infuriating. It has not made my life easier at all. Just the opposite. So, in that sense anyway, I'd say systemd is much less fun.
rhn_mk1 3y ago
As someone who had to mess with init scripts for a couple of distros for someone who requested it, this was not far from my idea of pure anti-fun. Every distro did init scripts in different, exciting ways, so I had to start over from reading the not-inconsequential docs for each one. The init systems come with some high-level helpers, but only if you want to use the shell, which is very unfun in its own right.
Izkata 3y ago
For me it was all about ease of access when investigating why something isn't working.
striking 3y ago
Personally, I tend to have more fun when all of the other parts of my system don't need to be fixed while I work on adding new stuff.

jjoonathan 3y ago

100%. My toes hurt every time Lennart Poettering steps on them, but every time I dig into the "why" it turns out to not only have been a good reason but a couldn't have worked any other way reason. If someone hadn't dragged Linux kicking and screaming into the 21st century, the arbitrary choices made in the definition of a config file format 50 years ago would cripple the ability to deliver basic features 50 years later in a manner that was robust/isolated/performant/etc.

johnklos 3y ago
> good reason I've been looking for these for years: the reasons that might justify the removal of basic functionality and interoperability with other tools. Got any sources?
- freedomben 3y ago
  Lennart's "Rethinking PID 1" was highly enlightening for me[1]. The LWN discussion on it was also really good[2]. [1]: http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html [2]: https://lwn.net/Articles/385536/ https://lwn.net/Articles/385536/

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

VancouverMan 3y ago

> It's been fashionable to hate on systemd, ... From what I can see, the dislike exists for far more practical reasons. In my experience, it has a tendency to break in ways that the numerous other init systems I've used over the decades never did. When it does break, it can easily prevent a computer from booting, which makes that computer pretty much useless until the problem is fixed. I've found that it has often been far more difficult, and takes far more effort, to debug and fix problems with it than with other init systems. Its tendency to become more invasive over time has also opened the door for even more problems involving it, well beyond its role as an init system. Given the large number of bug reports, questions, complaints, and so on about it that I've seen over the years, people don't dislike it just to be "fashionable". They dislike it because it's making their lives unnecessarily painful.

mikepurvis 3y ago

I've liked it from the beginning (coming from upstart), but I think my one frustration is that you can't run systemd in an unprivileged container— and this is not simply an implementation gap, it's an intentional design choice: https://systemd.io/CONTAINER_INTERFACE/ https://systemd.io/CONTAINER_INTERFACE/ You can argue that a process manager for an unprivileged container should be more like supervisor or systemd user services. However, it would be really convenient to be able to globally install unit files (say, using a deb package), and have them work whether it's bare metal, a VM, or a container.