8 ms·

Can someone TL;DR the problem with systemd?

by zxcdw 12y ago

derekp7 12y ago
Many people complaining about it is that it doesn't follow the Unix philosophy. I think that it's not so much that systemd is un-UNIX like (after all, it could be argued that X-windows is un-UNIX like too). I think the problem that people are having with it is that it is a cathedral that is getting erected right in the middle of their bazaar. (personally, I don't mind systemd, but I also didn't mind SysV, or BSD init styles either).
- marcosdumay 12y ago
  Also, it's a badly built cathedral, that most people see that will have problems in the future. And it's being built by a group of people with a history of pushing badly built catedrals onto Linux, that turn into ruins even before completion, and have to be maintained because people get used to praying there.
- digi_owl 12y ago
  >it is a cathedral that is getting erected right in the middle of their bazaar. That is a beautiful mental image.
mahouse 12y ago
There are so many problems with it that it's not possible to tl;dr them. But Google will help you. There are so many posts flaming it (for good reasons) that it will be easy for you to understand everything.
- danellis 12y ago
  Can you give examples of the most important ones? Are there any that are technical rather than philosophical?
- EdwardDiego 12y ago
  Could you recommend some? "Google it" is a non-answer.
  - mahouse 12y ago
    THis was probably the one that started it all: http://monolight.cc/2011/05/the-systemd-fallacy/ http://monolight.cc/2011/05/the-systemd-fallacy/ The "official" points by developers can be read in WP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemd#Reception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemd#Reception
ahomescu1 12y ago
In short: it's taking over Linux userspace. It's slowly leading us to a point where systemd will be "the Linux middleware", and all apps (above it) and the kernel itself (under it) will not work without systemd.
gilgoomesh 12y ago
systemd replaces a large number of startup and utility programs (specifically: sysvinit, pm-utils, inetd, acpid, syslog, watchdog, cron and atd). It also adds new daemons for logs, logins, locales, hostnames and a few other services. Most of this is a good thing. Faster. Newer code that is easier to maintain. Less reliance on shell scripts favoring declarative config files instead. But change has lots of difficulties. The biggest resistance though is coming from people who are simply accustomed to the old approaches and don't see a problem with them. But there are other objections from people who think systemd is too big in scope or too controlling or focussed on one technology or another or... some kind of conspiratorial trap or something (http://boycottsystemd.org http://boycottsystemd.org). I think these arguments are a little hyperbolic since systemd isn't actually a single monolithic system and is really an overarching project to update a lot of major system utilities. I'm personally more of a Mac user than Linux user. On the Mac, 10 years ago, launchd replaced many of the processes that systemd is now replacing in Linux. Particularly for things like cron and inetd (which were horrible to configure and work with) it was a huge improvement. However, the Mac never replaced as much all at once. It was a much gentler transition. In fact, discoveryd (which does a lot of what systemd's hostname daemon's are trying to do) was only introduced in the current Yosemite.
- cpncrunch 12y ago
  I haven't used systemd yet, but I'm concerned about having to learn a completely new way of doing things. I manage a number of servers, and it would be a huge inconvenience figuring out systemd. The old way works fine for me. Unfortunately most of the servers I work with are CentOS, and it seems Redhat has switched to systemd so I'm not entirely sure what I'll do in future. I guess now I have another option.
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
    "I'm concerned about having to learn a completely new way of doing things." That's just a fact of life in this industry tho.
    - cpncrunch 12y ago
tangus 12y ago
Some people don't like it per se, but mainly what they don't like is that it's going to be the only viable init system in Debian, since many maintainers don't have any intention to support the others.
frozenport 12y ago
50% of the problem is that all the old tutorials are broken 50% of the problem is that there is no appreciable advantage to me (as a Gentoo, XFCE user)

Can someone TL;DR the problem with systemd?

by zxcdw 12y ago

Can someone TL;DR the problem with systemd?

Many people complaining about it is that it doesn't follow the Unix philosophy. I think that it's not so much that systemd is un-UNIX like (after all, it could be argued that X-windows is un-UNIX like too). I think the problem that people are having with it is that it is a cathedral that is getting erected right in the middle of their bazaar. (personally, I don't mind systemd, but I also didn't mind SysV, or BSD init styles either).

marcosdumay 12y ago
Also, it's a badly built cathedral, that most people see that will have problems in the future. And it's being built by a group of people with a history of pushing badly built catedrals onto Linux, that turn into ruins even before completion, and have to be maintained because people get used to praying there.
digi_owl 12y ago
>it is a cathedral that is getting erected right in the middle of their bazaar. That is a beautiful mental image.

mahouse 12y ago

There are so many problems with it that it's not possible to tl;dr them. But Google will help you. There are so many posts flaming it (for good reasons) that it will be easy for you to understand everything.

danellis 12y ago
Can you give examples of the most important ones? Are there any that are technical rather than philosophical?
EdwardDiego 12y ago
Could you recommend some? "Google it" is a non-answer.
- mahouse 12y ago
  THis was probably the one that started it all: http://monolight.cc/2011/05/the-systemd-fallacy/ http://monolight.cc/2011/05/the-systemd-fallacy/ The "official" points by developers can be read in WP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemd#Reception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemd#Reception

ahomescu1 12y ago

In short: it's taking over Linux userspace. It's slowly leading us to a point where systemd will be "the Linux middleware", and all apps (above it) and the kernel itself (under it) will not work without systemd.

gilgoomesh 12y ago

systemd replaces a large number of startup and utility programs (specifically: sysvinit, pm-utils, inetd, acpid, syslog, watchdog, cron and atd). It also adds new daemons for logs, logins, locales, hostnames and a few other services. Most of this is a good thing. Faster. Newer code that is easier to maintain. Less reliance on shell scripts favoring declarative config files instead. But change has lots of difficulties. The biggest resistance though is coming from people who are simply accustomed to the old approaches and don't see a problem with them. But there are other objections from people who think systemd is too big in scope or too controlling or focussed on one technology or another or... some kind of conspiratorial trap or something (http://boycottsystemd.org http://boycottsystemd.org). I think these arguments are a little hyperbolic since systemd isn't actually a single monolithic system and is really an overarching project to update a lot of major system utilities. I'm personally more of a Mac user than Linux user. On the Mac, 10 years ago, launchd replaced many of the processes that systemd is now replacing in Linux. Particularly for things like cron and inetd (which were horrible to configure and work with) it was a huge improvement. However, the Mac never replaced as much all at once. It was a much gentler transition. In fact, discoveryd (which does a lot of what systemd's hostname daemon's are trying to do) was only introduced in the current Yosemite.

cpncrunch 12y ago
I haven't used systemd yet, but I'm concerned about having to learn a completely new way of doing things. I manage a number of servers, and it would be a huge inconvenience figuring out systemd. The old way works fine for me. Unfortunately most of the servers I work with are CentOS, and it seems Redhat has switched to systemd so I'm not entirely sure what I'll do in future. I guess now I have another option.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 12y ago
  "I'm concerned about having to learn a completely new way of doing things." That's just a fact of life in this industry tho.
  - cpncrunch 12y ago

tangus 12y ago

Some people don't like it per se, but mainly what they don't like is that it's going to be the only viable init system in Debian, since many maintainers don't have any intention to support the others.

frozenport 12y ago

50% of the problem is that all the old tutorials are broken 50% of the problem is that there is no appreciable advantage to me (as a Gentoo, XFCE user)