8 ms·

That piece seems a bit ... unbalanced. It starts off with confirming that systemd is indeed the very baddest bad thing there is. And then later on mentions tha

That piece seems a bit ... unbalanced. It starts off with confirming that systemd is indeed the very baddest bad thing there is. And then later on mentions that "but, yeah, I don't actually have any troubles with it" at the very end. I'm sure there are people who have their reasons for avoiding systemd, and for them a list like this is probably great. But for those still on the fence, this reeks of scare-tactics. Let's make on thing clear: Systemd does provide a sufficient amount benefits and I can say that without any particular source of my own. Why? Because pretty much all the distros out there are moving towards systemd and you would be out of your mind to think they are putting in this effort to migrate to systemd if they hadn't done a technical consideration and decided it was a worthwhile thing doing.

empressplay 12y ago
"Pretty much all the distros out there" except for: (from TFA) "The PCLinuxOS distribution has not adopted systemd and, so far as I know, has no plans to migrate to the new init software. Slackware Linux, CRUX and Gentoo Linux are all Linux distributions which are unlikely to adopt systemd as their default init system for philosophical reasons." The philosophical reasons being the centralisation of control over a key aspect of Linux to a group of developers that aren't universally trusted?
- nailer 12y ago
  Red Hat/Fedora, Suse, and Debian are massively popular. Gentoo is fairly large, but the others are niche.
  - bigbugbag 12y ago
    I've used debian for 15 years and I'm looking for a replacement because systemd. The turning point was systemd breaking a fully functional system and forcing it into recovery mode which was simply broken and going in an infinite loop of displaying it was about to offer a recovery terminal which never came. Not having log as text and useless info from systemctl and journalctl instead of the useful info I had in traditional logs played a significant part and the attitude and position of the systemd guys too. This debian forums post sums it all: From my (relatively short) experience with systemd as init I find that systemd (at least as packed in debian) is really far from being ready. Even the slightest unexpected (to systemd) configuration will make it break from all sides, and even the so-called emergency shell is painfully broken. Together with both the upstream and downstream (debian maintainer) attitude ("this is not a bug, fix your configuration so that it matches our expectations, which by the way change every day and we don't tell you about it" -- i.e. the exact opposite of Linus/kernel's attitude "we don't break userspace").
    - baldfat 12y ago
      Arch users made the switch a long time back. When switching to systemd it isn't just install and go. Systemd is mature and reliable and is running on so many servers it isn't even funny. I personally like it and it is much better for me to admin my services on servers.
      - josteink 12y ago
        > When switching to systemd it isn't just install and go. This I can definitely agree with. Has debian said anything about replacing sysvinit on existing installs or will they just be using systemd as the default on new ones? The latter would from my point of view be a reasonable compromise and shouldn't alienate anyone.
        chaosesqueteam 12y ago
        Yes. The systemd people are in control of the decision making process in debian now. They have decided that an upgrade to jessie will silently replace sysV with systemd. They have rejected all other arguments. Honestly, these truly are authoritarian scumbags. Linux is finished. And it happened quickly too.
      - bigbugbag 12y ago
        I replaced sidux by arch on my personal laptop 5 years ago and I'm looking for a replacement distro for this usage too. my experience with systemd on my arch laptop isn't one I would say is mature and reliable. When a service that used to work now fails to start and the only information systemd gives is that it failed to start, I find the only reliable things is that it fails to provide relevant information to allow me to get out of the situation the way I could with logs before systemd.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- cyphax 12y ago
  In the case of Slackware, I'm going to guess that it's more to do with Patrick's idea of "if it ain't broke, don't replace it". This is why Slackware still comes with Lilo by default: it works, so they never switched to Grub (though Grub can be used and is actually also an available package on the installation DVD: the choice is always yours).
- Slackwise 12y ago
  > The philosophical reasons being the centralisation of control over a key aspect of Linux to a group of developers that aren't universally trusted? In the case of Gentoo, they already support systemd[1] as an alternative. What I don't entirely understand is, systemd is an umbrella project with many sub-components[2] that are depended upon in many non-init packages now. As far as I can tell, none of the systemd devs care for anything other than Linux support [3], so any packages depending strictly on systemd components are unable to run/build on other systems, or have to now support two+ subsystems. Gentoo provides support for alternative platforms such as OSX and BSD via the Prefix[4] project, so for them to switch to systemd (and its sub-components) as a default would be to make the Prefix project harder to accomplish. Again, I don't know enough about the various components that comprise 'systemd', or how modular they are outside of Linux. If someone can clarify any misconceptions I have, I'd be grateful. [1]: http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Systemd http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Systemd [2]: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/35/Systemd_components.svg/720px-Systemd_components.svg.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/35/Sys... [3]: http://bsd.slashdot.org/story/11/07/16/0020243/Lennart-Poettering-BSD-Isnt-Relevant-Anymore http://bsd.slashdot.org/story/11/07/16/0020243/Lennart-Poett... [4]: https://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gentoo-alt/prefix/ https://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gentoo-alt/prefix/
bradfa 12y ago
this reeks of scare-tactics Yes, but avoiding risk is a valid argument for avoiding anything new. Avoidance of risk is why many people like Debian, so hearing that some users and developers of Debian are not in favor of systemd, even if only due to the fact that it's something very new and very different, seems quite reasonable. Systemd does provide a sufficient amount benefits you would be out of your mind to think they are putting in this effort to migrate to systemd if they hadn't done a technical consideration and decided it was a worthwhile thing doing To some people and some workloads, very much yes, systemd is a very good thing. To other people and workloads and system configurations, systemd doesn't help and sometimes even hurts. Really, to each their own. But this really is the whole point of FOSS, there are other init systems besides systemd and other OS than Linux where the use of systemd has not been deemed to be worthwhile. If you feel similarly, use one of those distributions/OS and contribute to it so that it doesn't go away. I'm not a fan of systemd. I run Debian stable. I'm not sure what I will do once Jessie becomes the stable release.
- chaosesqueteam 12y ago
  The solution is to fork Wheezy off as an alternative to Debian. Debian is now in the enemy camp. The decision making process has been taken over by the systemd people. New authoritarians. Wheezy is the last of the unix like era of the Linux "software stack". All that is needed is to patch security fixes sometimes, and/or run a grsecurity patched kernel. The software in Wheezy does everything desired. It is the ideal. The ideal is being lost. Make sure you keep your source code DVDs. Debian is now an enemy. Fork wheezy. Dump Jessie
VLM 12y ago
"That piece seems a bit ... unbalanced." "for them a list like this is probably great" I wouldn't describe the article as great, because it strayed so horribly off topic and the answer is wrong. By analogy it would be like asking a question along the lines of "please inform me generally about the marketplace for 3rd party iphone cases" and then instead of getting a survey of the iphone case marketplace, the response is a half dozen paragraphs about the relative superiority or inferiority of windows phone, and the philosophical implications of blind love of change vs blind avoidance of change, and the politics of blah blah and then at the end finally an answer like "Otterbox cases have a good reputation, and VLM on hacker news claims regardless of device mfgr, if he can put a device in an Otterbox case he puts it in an otterbox case, and (insert list of inferior competitors to Otterbox)" The other aspect I don't like is the answer in small detail is wrong, there is no uncertainty, Ubuntu is just reskinned and 3rd party support of Debian, so obviously "some time" after Debian goes 100% systemd then Ubuntu will go systemd. Its only a matter of time, Debian being Ubuntu's upstream. I guess theoretically the only way for Ubuntu to avoid it would be Ubuntu switching to Gentoo as upstream (guess it could theoretically happen, however unlikely) or avoid the question entirely by going out of business (again afaik not likely).
- epdtry 12y ago
  >obviously "some time" after Debian goes 100% systemd then Ubuntu will go systemd. Its only a matter of time, Debian being Ubuntu's upstream. Ubuntu has been using their own init daemon, "upstart", since 2006. After Debian announced their plans to switch to systemd, Ubuntu announced that they would follow suit instead of continuing to use upstart.
vezzy-fnord 12y ago
Well, the Linux community does have a long history of technical decisions that later ended up biting them in the ass. HALd was retired just as it was enthusiastically adopted, as it was widely deemed an "unmaintainable mess", despite its code size being only a fraction of systemd's. There was controversy around devfsd before udev replaced it. Debian's decision to adopt libav might have made sense initially, what with it speeding up development, but it later became a detriment very quickly. The ffmpeg deprecation disclaimer was also a very ignorant move. Finally, at the end of the day, most OEMs ship Windows. I think you're overestimating the distros a fair bit. Wide consensus doesn't always mean quality.

empressplay 12y ago

"Pretty much all the distros out there" except for: (from TFA) "The PCLinuxOS distribution has not adopted systemd and, so far as I know, has no plans to migrate to the new init software. Slackware Linux, CRUX and Gentoo Linux are all Linux distributions which are unlikely to adopt systemd as their default init system for philosophical reasons." The philosophical reasons being the centralisation of control over a key aspect of Linux to a group of developers that aren't universally trusted?

nailer 12y ago
Red Hat/Fedora, Suse, and Debian are massively popular. Gentoo is fairly large, but the others are niche.
- bigbugbag 12y ago
  I've used debian for 15 years and I'm looking for a replacement because systemd. The turning point was systemd breaking a fully functional system and forcing it into recovery mode which was simply broken and going in an infinite loop of displaying it was about to offer a recovery terminal which never came. Not having log as text and useless info from systemctl and journalctl instead of the useful info I had in traditional logs played a significant part and the attitude and position of the systemd guys too. This debian forums post sums it all: From my (relatively short) experience with systemd as init I find that systemd (at least as packed in debian) is really far from being ready. Even the slightest unexpected (to systemd) configuration will make it break from all sides, and even the so-called emergency shell is painfully broken. Together with both the upstream and downstream (debian maintainer) attitude ("this is not a bug, fix your configuration so that it matches our expectations, which by the way change every day and we don't tell you about it" -- i.e. the exact opposite of Linus/kernel's attitude "we don't break userspace").
  - baldfat 12y ago
    Arch users made the switch a long time back. When switching to systemd it isn't just install and go. Systemd is mature and reliable and is running on so many servers it isn't even funny. I personally like it and it is much better for me to admin my services on servers.
    - josteink 12y ago
      > When switching to systemd it isn't just install and go. This I can definitely agree with. Has debian said anything about replacing sysvinit on existing installs or will they just be using systemd as the default on new ones? The latter would from my point of view be a reasonable compromise and shouldn't alienate anyone.
      - chaosesqueteam 12y ago
        Yes. The systemd people are in control of the decision making process in debian now. They have decided that an upgrade to jessie will silently replace sysV with systemd. They have rejected all other arguments. Honestly, these truly are authoritarian scumbags. Linux is finished. And it happened quickly too.
    - bigbugbag 12y ago
      I replaced sidux by arch on my personal laptop 5 years ago and I'm looking for a replacement distro for this usage too. my experience with systemd on my arch laptop isn't one I would say is mature and reliable. When a service that used to work now fails to start and the only information systemd gives is that it failed to start, I find the only reliable things is that it fails to provide relevant information to allow me to get out of the situation the way I could with logs before systemd.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
cyphax 12y ago
In the case of Slackware, I'm going to guess that it's more to do with Patrick's idea of "if it ain't broke, don't replace it". This is why Slackware still comes with Lilo by default: it works, so they never switched to Grub (though Grub can be used and is actually also an available package on the installation DVD: the choice is always yours).
Slackwise 12y ago
> The philosophical reasons being the centralisation of control over a key aspect of Linux to a group of developers that aren't universally trusted? In the case of Gentoo, they already support systemd[1] as an alternative. What I don't entirely understand is, systemd is an umbrella project with many sub-components[2] that are depended upon in many non-init packages now. As far as I can tell, none of the systemd devs care for anything other than Linux support [3], so any packages depending strictly on systemd components are unable to run/build on other systems, or have to now support two+ subsystems. Gentoo provides support for alternative platforms such as OSX and BSD via the Prefix[4] project, so for them to switch to systemd (and its sub-components) as a default would be to make the Prefix project harder to accomplish. Again, I don't know enough about the various components that comprise 'systemd', or how modular they are outside of Linux. If someone can clarify any misconceptions I have, I'd be grateful. [1]: http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Systemd http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Systemd [2]: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/35/Systemd_components.svg/720px-Systemd_components.svg.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/35/Sys... [3]: http://bsd.slashdot.org/story/11/07/16/0020243/Lennart-Poettering-BSD-Isnt-Relevant-Anymore http://bsd.slashdot.org/story/11/07/16/0020243/Lennart-Poett... [4]: https://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gentoo-alt/prefix/ https://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gentoo-alt/prefix/

bradfa 12y ago

this reeks of scare-tactics Yes, but avoiding risk is a valid argument for avoiding anything new. Avoidance of risk is why many people like Debian, so hearing that some users and developers of Debian are not in favor of systemd, even if only due to the fact that it's something very new and very different, seems quite reasonable. Systemd does provide a sufficient amount benefits you would be out of your mind to think they are putting in this effort to migrate to systemd if they hadn't done a technical consideration and decided it was a worthwhile thing doing To some people and some workloads, very much yes, systemd is a very good thing. To other people and workloads and system configurations, systemd doesn't help and sometimes even hurts. Really, to each their own. But this really is the whole point of FOSS, there are other init systems besides systemd and other OS than Linux where the use of systemd has not been deemed to be worthwhile. If you feel similarly, use one of those distributions/OS and contribute to it so that it doesn't go away. I'm not a fan of systemd. I run Debian stable. I'm not sure what I will do once Jessie becomes the stable release.

chaosesqueteam 12y ago
The solution is to fork Wheezy off as an alternative to Debian. Debian is now in the enemy camp. The decision making process has been taken over by the systemd people. New authoritarians. Wheezy is the last of the unix like era of the Linux "software stack". All that is needed is to patch security fixes sometimes, and/or run a grsecurity patched kernel. The software in Wheezy does everything desired. It is the ideal. The ideal is being lost. Make sure you keep your source code DVDs. Debian is now an enemy. Fork wheezy. Dump Jessie

VLM 12y ago

"That piece seems a bit ... unbalanced." "for them a list like this is probably great" I wouldn't describe the article as great, because it strayed so horribly off topic and the answer is wrong. By analogy it would be like asking a question along the lines of "please inform me generally about the marketplace for 3rd party iphone cases" and then instead of getting a survey of the iphone case marketplace, the response is a half dozen paragraphs about the relative superiority or inferiority of windows phone, and the philosophical implications of blind love of change vs blind avoidance of change, and the politics of blah blah and then at the end finally an answer like "Otterbox cases have a good reputation, and VLM on hacker news claims regardless of device mfgr, if he can put a device in an Otterbox case he puts it in an otterbox case, and (insert list of inferior competitors to Otterbox)" The other aspect I don't like is the answer in small detail is wrong, there is no uncertainty, Ubuntu is just reskinned and 3rd party support of Debian, so obviously "some time" after Debian goes 100% systemd then Ubuntu will go systemd. Its only a matter of time, Debian being Ubuntu's upstream. I guess theoretically the only way for Ubuntu to avoid it would be Ubuntu switching to Gentoo as upstream (guess it could theoretically happen, however unlikely) or avoid the question entirely by going out of business (again afaik not likely).

epdtry 12y ago
>obviously "some time" after Debian goes 100% systemd then Ubuntu will go systemd. Its only a matter of time, Debian being Ubuntu's upstream. Ubuntu has been using their own init daemon, "upstart", since 2006. After Debian announced their plans to switch to systemd, Ubuntu announced that they would follow suit instead of continuing to use upstart.

vezzy-fnord 12y ago

Well, the Linux community does have a long history of technical decisions that later ended up biting them in the ass. HALd was retired just as it was enthusiastically adopted, as it was widely deemed an "unmaintainable mess", despite its code size being only a fraction of systemd's. There was controversy around devfsd before udev replaced it. Debian's decision to adopt libav might have made sense initially, what with it speeding up development, but it later became a detriment very quickly. The ffmpeg deprecation disclaimer was also a very ignorant move. Finally, at the end of the day, most OEMs ship Windows. I think you're overestimating the distros a fair bit. Wide consensus doesn't always mean quality.