4 ms·

systemd scales. I love small init systems but systemd is just so convenient. It handles daemon process, encryption with cryptsetup, boot process (systemd-boot),

by udev4096 11mo ago

systemd scales. I love small init systems but systemd is just so convenient. It handles daemon process, encryption with cryptsetup, boot process (systemd-boot), hardening options you can define on unit files, good support for nested containerization etc. It's deeply entrenched in every major distro that it's impossible to administer a linux system without it

rahen 11mo ago
The article and discussion are about runit, why bring systemd into it? Diversity in solutions is a good thing, there’s no need to feel threatened by that.
- udev4096 11mo ago
  Least sane systemd hater, try using runit or sysvinit on a production system and come back crying when your runit bash scripts fail all the time
  - DaSHacka 11mo ago
    You never addressed GP's point... This is just a thread about runit, what good is bringing tribal console-war like arguments about systemd to it?
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
  - yjftsjthsd-h 11mo ago
    I've had systemd fail/freeze in weird ways very few times. I've had non-systemd init scripts fail zero times.
    - udev4096 11mo ago
      "My opinions are universal fact and not a skill issue"
      - yjftsjthsd-h 11mo ago
        The number of times I've had something break is not an opinion. You claimed that anything but systemd would "fail all the time", I pointed out that in many years of using other options I've never had them do that. The most egregious systemd bug I've hit was it just freezing on shutdown, with zero error message or even warnings; there's nothing a user should be able to do to produce that outcome that's a "skill issue" and not a bug. In any event, you're just making up claims without evidence.
      - blueflow 11mo ago
        It is bad enough that systemd developers belittle users for the breakages they suffer from systemd, it is worse that you join this behavior. The lockup/freeze bugs from fifos/cdevs/sockets are real and systemd is the only init system affected, as the other init systems do not have functionality that would need the open() calls. Example bug: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/30690 https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/30690
- fullstop 11mo ago
  I'm okay with it for comparison's sake. As a long-time runit user, systemd does far better with sequencing things. With runit you have to have a check executable, and then run 'sv check servicename' in the start script of the service which depends on another.
shevy-java 11mo ago
Well - the systems presented here are about the init part, not anything else. Systemd includes more functionality than merely init-stuff, so any comparison here was always biased and unfair. If you compare 5_000 lines of code to 500_000 lines of code, the comparison won't work. Systemd assembled numerous things (weed-collection via systemd-homie, for the home setup and I think you can also accidentally delete your home directory, with the systemd devs claiming this is a feature). None of those "features" listed is what I consider needed or necessary. All daemon-startup I already did via ruby as wrapper over the underlying system. For a campus site with many computers, systemd simplified managing them. I don't really see the same benefit for people who know more about computer systems at home - all the complexity is a trade-off with regard to having to learn, understand and apply what systemd brings to the table. "It's deeply entrenched in every major distro that it's impossible to administer a linux system without it" That's a non-sequitur, aka an after-the-fact claim made. Not every distribution transitioned into forcing systemd onto everyone - granted, the majority did, but you can find distributions that did not surrender user's rights here, be it devuan, slackware, void, gentoo (https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_without_systemd https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_without_systemd). But admittedly it takes more effort than going into systemd. Note that many of the statements made there such as "hardening options", is just buzzword promo for systemd. It just means nothing. What should "hardening" even mean? Also, it is perfectly fine to use linux on a non-systemd system. People used to do this for decades before systemd infected the linux world. It's a smaller crowd though compared to systemd-using systems and users indeed nowadays.
- ethin 11mo ago
  > ... granted, the majority did, but you can find distributions that did not surrender user's rights here... I really don't like the phrasing of this. Nobody's rights are being "infringed" by distros going with systemd. Especially because, as other comments have noted, systemd is (not) just an init system, and more often than not I have found that people who hate on it or try to compare it to any pure init system are usually both arguing in bad faith and fundamentally misunderstanding what systemd actually is.
  - t43562 11mo ago
deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
blueflow 11mo ago
Why does every article on runit have some reactionary runit haters in the comments.
- DaSHacka 11mo ago
  The systemd project and its following can be quite cult-like, towards the more devout-end.
YouAreWRONGtoo 11mo ago
[dead]
blueflow 11mo ago
Do you happen to use Arch Linux?

rahen 11mo ago

The article and discussion are about runit, why bring systemd into it? Diversity in solutions is a good thing, there’s no need to feel threatened by that.

udev4096 11mo ago
Least sane systemd hater, try using runit or sysvinit on a production system and come back crying when your runit bash scripts fail all the time
- DaSHacka 11mo ago
  You never addressed GP's point... This is just a thread about runit, what good is bringing tribal console-war like arguments about systemd to it?
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- yjftsjthsd-h 11mo ago
  I've had systemd fail/freeze in weird ways very few times. I've had non-systemd init scripts fail zero times.
  - udev4096 11mo ago
    "My opinions are universal fact and not a skill issue"
    - yjftsjthsd-h 11mo ago
      The number of times I've had something break is not an opinion. You claimed that anything but systemd would "fail all the time", I pointed out that in many years of using other options I've never had them do that. The most egregious systemd bug I've hit was it just freezing on shutdown, with zero error message or even warnings; there's nothing a user should be able to do to produce that outcome that's a "skill issue" and not a bug. In any event, you're just making up claims without evidence.
    - blueflow 11mo ago
      It is bad enough that systemd developers belittle users for the breakages they suffer from systemd, it is worse that you join this behavior. The lockup/freeze bugs from fifos/cdevs/sockets are real and systemd is the only init system affected, as the other init systems do not have functionality that would need the open() calls. Example bug: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/30690 https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/30690
fullstop 11mo ago
I'm okay with it for comparison's sake. As a long-time runit user, systemd does far better with sequencing things. With runit you have to have a check executable, and then run 'sv check servicename' in the start script of the service which depends on another.

shevy-java 11mo ago

Well - the systems presented here are about the init part, not anything else. Systemd includes more functionality than merely init-stuff, so any comparison here was always biased and unfair. If you compare 5_000 lines of code to 500_000 lines of code, the comparison won't work. Systemd assembled numerous things (weed-collection via systemd-homie, for the home setup and I think you can also accidentally delete your home directory, with the systemd devs claiming this is a feature). None of those "features" listed is what I consider needed or necessary. All daemon-startup I already did via ruby as wrapper over the underlying system. For a campus site with many computers, systemd simplified managing them. I don't really see the same benefit for people who know more about computer systems at home - all the complexity is a trade-off with regard to having to learn, understand and apply what systemd brings to the table. "It's deeply entrenched in every major distro that it's impossible to administer a linux system without it" That's a non-sequitur, aka an after-the-fact claim made. Not every distribution transitioned into forcing systemd onto everyone - granted, the majority did, but you can find distributions that did not surrender user's rights here, be it devuan, slackware, void, gentoo (https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_without_systemd https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_without_systemd). But admittedly it takes more effort than going into systemd. Note that many of the statements made there such as "hardening options", is just buzzword promo for systemd. It just means nothing. What should "hardening" even mean? Also, it is perfectly fine to use linux on a non-systemd system. People used to do this for decades before systemd infected the linux world. It's a smaller crowd though compared to systemd-using systems and users indeed nowadays.

ethin 11mo ago
> ... granted, the majority did, but you can find distributions that did not surrender user's rights here... I really don't like the phrasing of this. Nobody's rights are being "infringed" by distros going with systemd. Especially because, as other comments have noted, systemd is (not) just an init system, and more often than not I have found that people who hate on it or try to compare it to any pure init system are usually both arguing in bad faith and fundamentally misunderstanding what systemd actually is.
- t43562 11mo ago

deleted 11mo ago

[deleted]

blueflow 11mo ago

Why does every article on runit have some reactionary runit haters in the comments.

DaSHacka 11mo ago
The systemd project and its following can be quite cult-like, towards the more devout-end.

YouAreWRONGtoo 11mo ago

[dead]

blueflow 11mo ago

Do you happen to use Arch Linux?