6 ms·

Many people are moving from linux to *bsd in protest of systemd.

by erkose 12y ago

pmoriarty 12y ago
And for a mature, stable ZFS implementation.
- Rovanion 12y ago
  Which ZFS on Linux is not? I guess it depends on your definition of stable due to the upgrade from libzfs1-2 but the richness of the Debian packaging system is just too good to pass up for me.
  - danieldk 12y ago
    Which ZFS on Linux is not? Given the licensing issues of combining GPL with CDDL code, ZFS will probably never be included in major distributions (assuming that the license will not change), so they will never have the same amount of integration as e.g. FreeBSD has in the installer.
  - jonhohle 12y ago
    Have you used other packaging systems? I've always liked ports (or portage in Gentoo) much more than apt. I'd go as far to say, I find apt infuriating compared to those.
johnny22 12y ago
kinda funny though.. as you end up with a system that is developed more like systemd is.
- pmoriarty 12y ago
  Could you elaborate on that?
  - rcxdude 12y ago
    One single repository containing many different components of the OS, which are not designed to be interchangeable. Basically the biggest complaint most systemd critics have ('monolithic!').
    - andreasvc 12y ago
      That is not what monolithic means. Monolithic is opposed to modular. Just being in the same repository does not make components tightly coupled etc.
      - the_why_of_y 12y ago
        Monolithic is _not_ opposed to modular. Here's a list of systems that are both monolithic and modular: * Linux * the FreeBSD kernel * the Solaris kernel * Apache HTTPD * Postfix * OpenJDK * XOrg * EMACS * LibreOffice A modular, non-monolithic alternative to the kernels would be MINIX or HURD.
        andreasvc 12y ago
        Monolithic may have a specific technical meaning in the context of kernels which is not opposed to modularity, but in general the two can be considered opposites. Monolithic is simply "of one piece", while modular means something has separate, changeable pieces. If you disagree it would be more enlightening to tell me your definition instead of a list of exceptions, because right now I don't see why they are.
      - justincormack 12y ago
        But they are in the same repo because they are tightly coupled. Some of the code is shared between kernel and userspace for example, and stuff is versioned to match, as the BSDs do not have the strict userspace compatibility guarantees that Linux does, so things do change (though there are compat shims).
        12y ago
- chronid 12y ago
  No. This is _bullshit_, and people should really stop saying this. A lot of components (OpenSSL? GCC? LLVM?) are in that repository merely for convenience but ARE NOT developed on internally (except for patches to make them work, eventually). This IS NOT the same of "everything developed internally here, from syslog to dhcpcd" mentality of systemd.
lowglow 12y ago
That's weird. I haven't kept up with the latest *nix gossip, but isn't the very principle of the system is that it is open and fully configurable/modular/extensible? What does it really matter in the end what system you use if you can make whatever system your own? (serious question)
- hobofan 12y ago
  It matters because if it "invades" your distribution of choice. Imagine you've been useing a distro for years and grown to love it and now systemd is being forced upon you of you make the next major upgrade. Right now it isn't really that bleak, because some distros still give you a choice, but people are worried that the choice will be sacrificed in favor of easier maintanability in the future.
  - danieldk 12y ago
    It matters because if it "invades" your distribution of choice. Imagine you've been useing a distro for years and grown to love it and now systemd is being forced upon you of you make the next major upgrade. Like ELF, glibc2, egcs, devfs, hotplug (the old script-flavored version), udev, eglibc, etc. I am mentioning these, because all of them caused a controversy with a vocal minority. It is evolution. None of these are controversial anymore. Some of them were replaced, because they were bad ideas in hindsight (devfs). By definition any fundamental part of the system (such as init or the C library) that changes is 'forced upon' the user.
    - na85 12y ago
      Your quotes around 'forced upon' make it seem like it is not really being forced onto users. Gnome users for example are getting shafted now that systemd is a dependency for the gnome DE.
  - dnlrn 12y ago
    http://www.islinuxaboutchoice.com/ http://www.islinuxaboutchoice.com/
SFjulie1 12y ago
no. And I hope not. I moved to FBSD for positive reeasons: ipfilters and stuff vs packetfilter and ezjails. It makes you feel linux still cool, but you want that simplicity and power back (jails vs VM). I must admit shellshock and last security flaws also made me aware of my love for bloatwares. I find it sane to question my former choices.
byuu 12y ago
Many people are leaving Linux because of systemd (among other issues); but are choosing FreeBSD because of ZFS, pf, geli, jails, dtrace, bhyve, etc. (I haven't used the latter two myself yet, but the rest are fantastic.) In the end I've gained more than I lost, it's just that a catalyst was needed to get past the inertia of changing operating systems again.
- riquito 12y ago
  > Many people are leaving Linux because of systemd Do you have any number to justify this statement? I also note that all the tools you mentioned are of interest mostly in a server context (of course if you manage servers you will happily use them on your desktop too).
  - icantthinkofone 12y ago
    My guesstimate would be based on the number of posts on the FreeBSD forum(s) and mailing lists I visit where there has been a noticeable increase in the number of questions that mention leaving Linux due to the systemd debacle or wanting something that's not trying to become Windows or a XBox.
keithpeter 12y ago
Quote from OA; "In layman's terms, the hardware interface is called Linux, while the rest of the part: the shell, core tools, etc are GNU.It's a piece from there, another from somewhere else and merging the whole thing into one collectively known as GNU/Linux. [...] In FreeBSD, the whole thing is a complete unit." I think the OA will be quite happy with a mature systemd based GNU/Linux OS. Seems to like complete units. PS: 'Many' is a hard concept when the OS is freely downloadable and not particularly monitored. One hopes the refugees actually make donations/buy DVDs.

Many people are moving from linux to *bsd in protest of systemd.

by erkose 12y ago

Many people are moving from linux to *bsd in protest of systemd.

pmoriarty 12y ago

And for a mature, stable ZFS implementation.

Rovanion 12y ago
Which ZFS on Linux is not? I guess it depends on your definition of stable due to the upgrade from libzfs1-2 but the richness of the Debian packaging system is just too good to pass up for me.
- danieldk 12y ago
  Which ZFS on Linux is not? Given the licensing issues of combining GPL with CDDL code, ZFS will probably never be included in major distributions (assuming that the license will not change), so they will never have the same amount of integration as e.g. FreeBSD has in the installer.
- jonhohle 12y ago
  Have you used other packaging systems? I've always liked ports (or portage in Gentoo) much more than apt. I'd go as far to say, I find apt infuriating compared to those.

johnny22 12y ago

kinda funny though.. as you end up with a system that is developed more like systemd is.

pmoriarty 12y ago
Could you elaborate on that?
- rcxdude 12y ago
  One single repository containing many different components of the OS, which are not designed to be interchangeable. Basically the biggest complaint most systemd critics have ('monolithic!').
  - andreasvc 12y ago
    That is not what monolithic means. Monolithic is opposed to modular. Just being in the same repository does not make components tightly coupled etc.
    - the_why_of_y 12y ago
      Monolithic is _not_ opposed to modular. Here's a list of systems that are both monolithic and modular: * Linux * the FreeBSD kernel * the Solaris kernel * Apache HTTPD * Postfix * OpenJDK * XOrg * EMACS * LibreOffice A modular, non-monolithic alternative to the kernels would be MINIX or HURD.
      - andreasvc 12y ago
        Monolithic may have a specific technical meaning in the context of kernels which is not opposed to modularity, but in general the two can be considered opposites. Monolithic is simply "of one piece", while modular means something has separate, changeable pieces. If you disagree it would be more enlightening to tell me your definition instead of a list of exceptions, because right now I don't see why they are.
    - justincormack 12y ago
      But they are in the same repo because they are tightly coupled. Some of the code is shared between kernel and userspace for example, and stuff is versioned to match, as the BSDs do not have the strict userspace compatibility guarantees that Linux does, so things do change (though there are compat shims).
      - 12y ago
chronid 12y ago
No. This is _bullshit_, and people should really stop saying this. A lot of components (OpenSSL? GCC? LLVM?) are in that repository merely for convenience but ARE NOT developed on internally (except for patches to make them work, eventually). This IS NOT the same of "everything developed internally here, from syslog to dhcpcd" mentality of systemd.

lowglow 12y ago

That's weird. I haven't kept up with the latest *nix gossip, but isn't the very principle of the system is that it is open and fully configurable/modular/extensible? What does it really matter in the end what system you use if you can make whatever system your own? (serious question)

hobofan 12y ago
It matters because if it "invades" your distribution of choice. Imagine you've been useing a distro for years and grown to love it and now systemd is being forced upon you of you make the next major upgrade. Right now it isn't really that bleak, because some distros still give you a choice, but people are worried that the choice will be sacrificed in favor of easier maintanability in the future.
- danieldk 12y ago
  It matters because if it "invades" your distribution of choice. Imagine you've been useing a distro for years and grown to love it and now systemd is being forced upon you of you make the next major upgrade. Like ELF, glibc2, egcs, devfs, hotplug (the old script-flavored version), udev, eglibc, etc. I am mentioning these, because all of them caused a controversy with a vocal minority. It is evolution. None of these are controversial anymore. Some of them were replaced, because they were bad ideas in hindsight (devfs). By definition any fundamental part of the system (such as init or the C library) that changes is 'forced upon' the user.
  - na85 12y ago
    Your quotes around 'forced upon' make it seem like it is not really being forced onto users. Gnome users for example are getting shafted now that systemd is a dependency for the gnome DE.
- dnlrn 12y ago
  http://www.islinuxaboutchoice.com/ http://www.islinuxaboutchoice.com/

SFjulie1 12y ago

no. And I hope not. I moved to FBSD for positive reeasons: ipfilters and stuff vs packetfilter and ezjails. It makes you feel linux still cool, but you want that simplicity and power back (jails vs VM). I must admit shellshock and last security flaws also made me aware of my love for bloatwares. I find it sane to question my former choices.

byuu 12y ago

Many people are leaving Linux because of systemd (among other issues); but are choosing FreeBSD because of ZFS, pf, geli, jails, dtrace, bhyve, etc. (I haven't used the latter two myself yet, but the rest are fantastic.) In the end I've gained more than I lost, it's just that a catalyst was needed to get past the inertia of changing operating systems again.

riquito 12y ago
> Many people are leaving Linux because of systemd Do you have any number to justify this statement? I also note that all the tools you mentioned are of interest mostly in a server context (of course if you manage servers you will happily use them on your desktop too).
- icantthinkofone 12y ago
  My guesstimate would be based on the number of posts on the FreeBSD forum(s) and mailing lists I visit where there has been a noticeable increase in the number of questions that mention leaving Linux due to the systemd debacle or wanting something that's not trying to become Windows or a XBox.

keithpeter 12y ago

Quote from OA; "In layman's terms, the hardware interface is called Linux, while the rest of the part: the shell, core tools, etc are GNU.It's a piece from there, another from somewhere else and merging the whole thing into one collectively known as GNU/Linux. [...] In FreeBSD, the whole thing is a complete unit." I think the OA will be quite happy with a mature systemd based GNU/Linux OS. Seems to like complete units. PS: 'Many' is a hard concept when the OS is freely downloadable and not particularly monitored. One hopes the refugees actually make donations/buy DVDs.