7 ms·

Even though I do not fully agree, I think this project has one of the most mature, nuanced, and balanced takes on systemd I have seen yet [0]. [0]: https://chi

Even though I do not fully agree, I think this project has one of the most mature, nuanced, and balanced takes on systemd I have seen yet [0]. [0]: https://chimera-linux.org/docs/faq#what-is-the-projects-take-on-systemd https://chimera-linux.org/docs/faq#what-is-the-projects-take...

rahen 3y ago
This is also the stand of Void Linux by the way. Void is not systemd-free for the sake of it but to offer a Linux system that keeps its Unix heritage of small, loosely coupled components, is reasonably POSIX and portable (xbps), and lets the user pick his libc.
- LeFantome 3y ago
  The Chimera founder was a Void maintainer. There is certainly a fair bit of philosophical alignment. If Chimera is able to become as popular as Void is now, I would be happy. It would be amazing if it could be the next Arch. I am not sure what q66 wants for the distro but keeping the core distribution pure and having some successful derivatives would be cool ( if they kept to much the same vision ). But I guess I should let the project get out of Alpha first. :)
treffer 3y ago
This is a really neat one. I think the only part that should be more nuanced is > systemd is written to deliberately (ab)use every single non-portable extension under the sun I think this should be split into 2 parts. Linux specific kernel features and userspace extensions (GNU vs. POSIX). Using linux specific kernel features (like cgroups) is good for a linux system. E.g. a common issue with sshd used to be that under high load it would become slow and problematic to log in. Systemd configures the system such that this becomes less likely to happen. For userspace extensions I would have hoped that systemd would see it as a net positive to build upon a smaller set of tools and features, but the page seems to indicate otherwise. Does anyone know what happened on that front?
- q66 3y ago
  that part refers solely to gratuitous use of extensions in the code, it does not refer to things like cgroups for which there are no portable equivalents, or anything else that is required to implement useful functionality and has no portable counterparts
- LeFantome 3y ago
  As a selfish user, I see taking full advantage of all the features of the kernel as a good thing. OCI container support is one of the things that keeps me so firmly planted in the Linux ecosystem. Outside the kernel, calling into non-portable extensions should only be done with good reason. One of my favourite things about Chimera is its rejection of most of the GNU specific ecosystem. Actually, I do not like GNU specific stuff in the kernel either. It should be possible to compile the kernel with multiple compilers. Ironically, with the addition of Rust in the kernel, most distributions will have to use both LLVM and GCC to create a kernel whereas Chimera can use LLVM for both. Hopefully by the time important Rust code starts to ship in Linux, GCC will have a proper Rust front-end. I am all for one “most popular” Linux distro that new users can be directed to and that commercial interests can support. Linux ubiquity is being held back by “fragmentation” in that way. That said, I want the ability for myself to choose other ways of doing things ( knowing the convenience I am giving up to do so ). I want focussed projects to be able to innovate. Even if we have a “most popular” option, I do not want a mono-culture. You can have an all systemd system. It can be the norm. Please do not take away my ability to do something else. At least, do not do it without a good reason.
wkat4242 3y ago
Yeah pretty interesting. Personally I never liked systemd because I just didn't see the need for it and I don't like changes forced on me. I'm not a team player and I hate being told to 'just go with the flow'. The whole idea of FOSS for me is to be in control of my computer. Alnd I just don't like the character of Poettering and yes that matters. For a much more extreme example look at ReiserFS. It was totally shitcanned after it turned out its creator was an actual murderer. Of course Poettering is nothing close to that and his biggest fault is being a little socially abrasive and opinionated. I'm just more sensitive to this than others. But I just really hate optionated software. This probably makes me a "systemd hater" that the article speaks off. I understand as my concerns are indeed a bit petty. But they're mine anyhow. In the end I moved to BSD. I'm very happy with it now. They don't have the push to constantly changing stuff around for the sake of things like systemd and net-tools.
- gosub100 3y ago
  > They don't have the push to constantly changing stuff around for the sake of things like systemd and net-tools. I assume you forgot a word here and intended to write "changing stuff around for the sake of changing things"? I just want to set the record straight: systemd solves the startup-dependency problem. Yes the old default init scripts worked fine for your system (that probably had very few services installed other than vanilla defaults), but it was insufficient for handling the exploding cascade of dependencies when service1 depends on the network, service2 depends on the graphical subsystem, service3 (the wifi daemon) can restart the network, etc. People tried in vain, hacked nasty rc.init scripts for years, until Poettering took matters into his own hands. I will stop there because I dont know the whole history behind it, but I just take issue with the attitude that systemd in particular is just kids messing around with the latest-new-thing. Some of that does exist in the Linux sphere, even worse, with some maintainers putting inappropriate images and political messages in their apps[1]. But systemd - as with wayland - solves a problem that had been brewing a long time.I suppose you could almost think of it as a fix for developers instead of end users? I'm not compelling you to use it, just disputing your final point. [1]. https://www.reddit.com/r/browsers/comments/18izmt4/clarifying_thorium_browser_controversy/ https://www.reddit.com/r/browsers/comments/18izmt4/clarifyin...
9dev 3y ago
A Bit OT, but is there something like the contrary to this - a distro actually fully embracing systemd components? I have spent lots of time with Linux servers. I’m also very pragmatic. systemd has made lots of stuff easier, is highly configurable, maintained and regularly updated, and properly standardised. I acknowledge people who have a need to feel in control or something, but I just want reliable computers that have a single way of doing stuff. They’re cattle, after all. So I’d really love something with an immutable system image, signed boot, and systemd services top to bottom, along the lines of the thought experiments in Poetterings blog. Is that a thing?
- LeFantome 3y ago
  EndeavourOS seems to be embracing Systemd fairly enthusiastically. Not an immutable distro though.
- NewJazz 3y ago
  Not really. Which is frankly odd because Poettering definitely has strong opinions about how a distro should be distributed and structured... Curious why he doesn't just do it himself.
  - 9dev 3y ago
    I guess he just lacks the time. Maintaining a distro means a long term commitment to maintenance. Although, I guess just building a prototype, or maybe a reference implementation of the thing he writes about, that would be interesting too.
- eternityforest 3y ago
  That sounds like Ubuntu Core. I use regular Ubuntu, but it looks like they really want to go all snap all the time, so I expect that in a few years I'll probably be using an all snap system Snap might not be a part of systemd, but it is in the same general category of ultra standardized system software.
  - NewJazz 3y ago
nextaccountic 3y ago
I'm a big supporter of systemd, but > Until systemd, there wasn’t anything else that would really do the trick (djbware and stuff derived from djbware does not count, as it’s lacking too much stuff that even various hacked together rc implementations on top of sysvinit added eventually) There was Canonical's upstart, used in Ubuntu. systemd was created to address upstart's shortcomings
nextaccountic 3y ago
I'm a big supporter of systemd, but > Until systemd, there wasn’t anything else that would really do the trick (djbware and stuff derived from djbware does not count, as it’s lacking too much stuff that even various hacked together rc implementations on top of sysvinit added eventually) There was Canonical's upstart, used in Ubuntu. systemd was created to address upstart's shortcomings > That’s why one of the goals in Chimera is to implement the actual useful systemd functionality, but independently and in our own way, without the shortcomings. This is amazing! The greatest value of systemd is that there are many service files written for it (my own ~/.config/systemd directory has a dozen of services) and I think there is value in being compatible with it

rahen 3y ago

This is also the stand of Void Linux by the way. Void is not systemd-free for the sake of it but to offer a Linux system that keeps its Unix heritage of small, loosely coupled components, is reasonably POSIX and portable (xbps), and lets the user pick his libc.

LeFantome 3y ago
The Chimera founder was a Void maintainer. There is certainly a fair bit of philosophical alignment. If Chimera is able to become as popular as Void is now, I would be happy. It would be amazing if it could be the next Arch. I am not sure what q66 wants for the distro but keeping the core distribution pure and having some successful derivatives would be cool ( if they kept to much the same vision ). But I guess I should let the project get out of Alpha first. :)

treffer 3y ago

This is a really neat one. I think the only part that should be more nuanced is > systemd is written to deliberately (ab)use every single non-portable extension under the sun I think this should be split into 2 parts. Linux specific kernel features and userspace extensions (GNU vs. POSIX). Using linux specific kernel features (like cgroups) is good for a linux system. E.g. a common issue with sshd used to be that under high load it would become slow and problematic to log in. Systemd configures the system such that this becomes less likely to happen. For userspace extensions I would have hoped that systemd would see it as a net positive to build upon a smaller set of tools and features, but the page seems to indicate otherwise. Does anyone know what happened on that front?

q66 3y ago
that part refers solely to gratuitous use of extensions in the code, it does not refer to things like cgroups for which there are no portable equivalents, or anything else that is required to implement useful functionality and has no portable counterparts
LeFantome 3y ago
As a selfish user, I see taking full advantage of all the features of the kernel as a good thing. OCI container support is one of the things that keeps me so firmly planted in the Linux ecosystem. Outside the kernel, calling into non-portable extensions should only be done with good reason. One of my favourite things about Chimera is its rejection of most of the GNU specific ecosystem. Actually, I do not like GNU specific stuff in the kernel either. It should be possible to compile the kernel with multiple compilers. Ironically, with the addition of Rust in the kernel, most distributions will have to use both LLVM and GCC to create a kernel whereas Chimera can use LLVM for both. Hopefully by the time important Rust code starts to ship in Linux, GCC will have a proper Rust front-end. I am all for one “most popular” Linux distro that new users can be directed to and that commercial interests can support. Linux ubiquity is being held back by “fragmentation” in that way. That said, I want the ability for myself to choose other ways of doing things ( knowing the convenience I am giving up to do so ). I want focussed projects to be able to innovate. Even if we have a “most popular” option, I do not want a mono-culture. You can have an all systemd system. It can be the norm. Please do not take away my ability to do something else. At least, do not do it without a good reason.

wkat4242 3y ago

Yeah pretty interesting. Personally I never liked systemd because I just didn't see the need for it and I don't like changes forced on me. I'm not a team player and I hate being told to 'just go with the flow'. The whole idea of FOSS for me is to be in control of my computer. Alnd I just don't like the character of Poettering and yes that matters. For a much more extreme example look at ReiserFS. It was totally shitcanned after it turned out its creator was an actual murderer. Of course Poettering is nothing close to that and his biggest fault is being a little socially abrasive and opinionated. I'm just more sensitive to this than others. But I just really hate optionated software. This probably makes me a "systemd hater" that the article speaks off. I understand as my concerns are indeed a bit petty. But they're mine anyhow. In the end I moved to BSD. I'm very happy with it now. They don't have the push to constantly changing stuff around for the sake of things like systemd and net-tools.

gosub100 3y ago
> They don't have the push to constantly changing stuff around for the sake of things like systemd and net-tools. I assume you forgot a word here and intended to write "changing stuff around for the sake of changing things"? I just want to set the record straight: systemd solves the startup-dependency problem. Yes the old default init scripts worked fine for your system (that probably had very few services installed other than vanilla defaults), but it was insufficient for handling the exploding cascade of dependencies when service1 depends on the network, service2 depends on the graphical subsystem, service3 (the wifi daemon) can restart the network, etc. People tried in vain, hacked nasty rc.init scripts for years, until Poettering took matters into his own hands. I will stop there because I dont know the whole history behind it, but I just take issue with the attitude that systemd in particular is just kids messing around with the latest-new-thing. Some of that does exist in the Linux sphere, even worse, with some maintainers putting inappropriate images and political messages in their apps[1]. But systemd - as with wayland - solves a problem that had been brewing a long time.I suppose you could almost think of it as a fix for developers instead of end users? I'm not compelling you to use it, just disputing your final point. [1]. https://www.reddit.com/r/browsers/comments/18izmt4/clarifying_thorium_browser_controversy/ https://www.reddit.com/r/browsers/comments/18izmt4/clarifyin...

9dev 3y ago

A Bit OT, but is there something like the contrary to this - a distro actually fully embracing systemd components? I have spent lots of time with Linux servers. I’m also very pragmatic. systemd has made lots of stuff easier, is highly configurable, maintained and regularly updated, and properly standardised. I acknowledge people who have a need to feel in control or something, but I just want reliable computers that have a single way of doing stuff. They’re cattle, after all. So I’d really love something with an immutable system image, signed boot, and systemd services top to bottom, along the lines of the thought experiments in Poetterings blog. Is that a thing?

LeFantome 3y ago
EndeavourOS seems to be embracing Systemd fairly enthusiastically. Not an immutable distro though.
NewJazz 3y ago
Not really. Which is frankly odd because Poettering definitely has strong opinions about how a distro should be distributed and structured... Curious why he doesn't just do it himself.
- 9dev 3y ago
  I guess he just lacks the time. Maintaining a distro means a long term commitment to maintenance. Although, I guess just building a prototype, or maybe a reference implementation of the thing he writes about, that would be interesting too.
eternityforest 3y ago
That sounds like Ubuntu Core. I use regular Ubuntu, but it looks like they really want to go all snap all the time, so I expect that in a few years I'll probably be using an all snap system Snap might not be a part of systemd, but it is in the same general category of ultra standardized system software.
- NewJazz 3y ago

nextaccountic 3y ago

I'm a big supporter of systemd, but > Until systemd, there wasn’t anything else that would really do the trick (djbware and stuff derived from djbware does not count, as it’s lacking too much stuff that even various hacked together rc implementations on top of sysvinit added eventually) There was Canonical's upstart, used in Ubuntu. systemd was created to address upstart's shortcomings > That’s why one of the goals in Chimera is to implement the actual useful systemd functionality, but independently and in our own way, without the shortcomings. This is amazing! The greatest value of systemd is that there are many service files written for it (my own ~/.config/systemd directory has a dozen of services) and I think there is value in being compatible with it