4 ms·
I still haven't fully grasped the Systemd drama, or systemd for that matter, but boy do I love it. I enjoy how Linux has those turf wars nobody outside of it kn
by abnry 2y ago
I still haven't fully grasped the Systemd drama, or systemd for that matter, but boy do I love it. I enjoy how Linux has those turf wars nobody outside of it knows about.
- jandrese 2y agoSystemD is great when it works, which is most of the time. But when it breaks or you have to do something that SystemD doesn't support it becomes an enormous pain in the ass. It's like being back in Windows land again. Some DBus message is not appearing and it stalls out your boot process, finding where it was supposed to come from and why it didn't appear is a nightmare. If you want to use a different daemon than the one SystemD provides for some service it will fight you every step of the way, sometimes even undoing whatever you had to do to make the process work in a random update. As someone who experiments with weird networking stuff from time to time I've been kicked in the nuts by NetworkManager on several occasions.
- tuatoru 2y agoYah, Networkmanager is a rootkit.
- sophacles 2y ago> As someone who experiments with weird networking stuff from time to time I've been kicked in the nuts by NetworkManager on several occasions. nit: NetworkManager is not the one provided by systemd in the first place - that's systemd-networkd. That aside I do wierd networking stuff for a living and here's how I see the available tooling: * NetworkManager - great for a laptop where you're moving between networks and don't need anything too fancy. * systemd-networkd - great for servers and other mostly static networking setups, even weird ones. * If you're doing anything weird dynamically (e.g. experimenting) - disable the above or move the interfaces you are experimenting on to a fresh netns and do everything by hand with the ip command (and maybe udchpc or dhclient if you need a dhcp client, but be aware of how to write your own callback scripts for how to handle various associated events).
- creshal 2y agoNow for the weird part: Redhat wrote both NM and sd-nd, and decided what servers really need is NM by default, and getting a server to actually use sd-nd is like pulling teeth on RHEL. Completely baffling.
- ChocolateGod 2y agoNetworkManager can read old style sysconfig network configuration, which is still used to this very day even if Red Hat wishes you wouldn't, and you really shouldn't.
- sophacles 2y agoI don't know why Redhat would do that, but I've never used RHEL - I quit the redhat and derivatives in the 90's due to rpm hell, and never looked back.
- creshal 2y agoA new job forced me to get intimately familiar with how fractally dysfunctional RHEL and derivatives still are, and the only thing more baffling than Redhat's self-sabotaging decision making process is why anyone would voluntarily use it. I hope we can finish the Debian migration soon.
- gsich 2y agosystemd-networkd also has the big advantage in using the same config for all distributions. No weird Debian or Redhat config pain.
- pdw 2y agoI know this is a completely unimportant tangent. But I'm always amused that systemd skeptics insist on the "SystemD" spelling. Where does that come from? I never see anybody talk about NtpD, InetD or VsftpD. But somehow systemd needs to be SystemD. As I said, amusing.
- Analemma_ 2y agoI'm pretty sure it's just ingroup signaling: it's not the only example of "spelling something wrong because you really hate it". For years I've seen people on forums who want to show their dislike say "MAC" instead of "Mac", "MicroSoft" and so on.
- ssl-3 2y agoIn what way is strange capitalization of a technical word usement indicative specifically of hate within a group of haters? And what does this mean of the amateur radio operators who call themselves HAMs?
- philistine 2y agoWell if people are unhappy about MAC adresses on Macs, that's their perogative.
- Enginerrrd 2y agoHere's one for you: I can't remember the exact details, but I was trying to get do something with a samba share folder via systemd unit file and the way systemd handles the escape characters used by the samba client was not compatible for windows network shares that used spaces in the name.
- hi-v-rocknroll 2y agoBecause it completely violates the UNIX philosophy and mission creeps into taking over essentially every part of the system. It was shoved down the throats of every user because the major distros kowtowed to a FOSS diva with a spotty track record, creating a monoculture built on awfulness and bloat.
- 7bit 2y agoI appreciated it. I fucking hated all these init scripts and find it muuuuuch easier to get services running under systemd. I don't care about philosophy when it gets in my way of managing systems.
- palata 2y agoHad it not been for the philosophy, Linux would not have been a thing. If you don't care about philosophy, consider going to Windows?
- ranger207 2y agoI seem to remember a lot of debates on whether or not Linux followed that philosophy compared to a microkernel
- lmm 2y agoProbably less than it might. I expect microkernels to eventually displace Linux, whether explicitly or by gradually turning Linux into a microkernel.
- qu4z-2 2y agoWhy would they have to go to Windows when systemd is bringing Windows to Linux?
- mariusor 2y ago> Had it not been for the philosophy, Linux would not have been a thing I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, but linux (the kernel) is very much not a "do one thing and do it well" kind of program. You'd need a microkernel for that.