7 ms·

systemd is basically a self-contained operating system at this point...

krschultz 11y ago
That's a feature not a bug. The first sentence on the systemd project overview is: systemd is a suite of basic building blocks for a Linux system. After describing the init system it goes on to say: Other parts include a logging daemon, utilities to control basic system configuration like the hostname, date, locale, maintain a list of logged-in users and running containers and virtual machines, system accounts, runtime directories and settings, and daemons to manage simple network configuration, network time synchronization, log forwarding, and name resolution. systemd is intentionally a much bigger project than just the systemd init system.
- drjesusphd 11y ago
  Then why does it seem like every Debian debate compared it (favorably) to upstart or sysvinit? This is what annoys me about that debate. Systemd arguably _is_ a better init system. But no one asked for a new logger, network config, time daemon, cron, etc. Now you're saying that's always been the intention? Perhaps, but this was not emphasized by the systemd team.
  - programmernews3 11y ago
    systemd does logging, network config, time daemon, cron, etc better than the alternatives btw.
    - caf 11y ago
      In the case of the time daemon, that does not actually seem to be the case. It appears to be a far less rigorous approach than that used by ntpd - basically it looks to be similar to running ntpdate in a loop.
      - digi_owl 11y ago
        Seems to be par of the course for systemd sub projects. Their dhcp client violates various security best practices in the name of speed (the whole thing was reminiscent of the Apple debacle related to iOS wifi). And their DNS client quietly grew a cache susceptible to poisoning. A problem known about and solved for a decade in DNS circles.
    - alrs 11y ago
      I'd be in "eat my hat" territory if systemd was a better logger than syslog-ng.
      - ossreality 11y ago
        How is it not?
  - crdoconnor 11y ago
    >Then why does it seem like every Debian debate compared it (favorably) to upstart The debian technical committee vote on upstart vs systemd was split 50:50.
  - krschultz 11y ago
    I don't know if that was always the intention. I don't know the original authors of systemd personally. The original announcement blog post definitely does not make any claims to be more than just an init system[1]. That said, at one point the Apache Foundation was just about a web server and the GNU project was just about a compiler. I'm not arguing for or against systemd here, I'm just saying that the days of thinking about systemd as just an init system are over. They're building an entire framework for a Linux distro. You can agree or disagree with that, but talking about systemd today as an init system that has sprawled is obfuscating the situation. The systemd maintainers today are clearly trying to go beyond just an init system. [1] http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html
    - cremno 11y ago
      >the GNU project was just about a compiler The acronym itself is actually a big hint that this is incorrect. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/net.unix-wizards/8twfRPM79u0/1xlglzrWrU0J https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/net.unix-wizards/8twfR... >To begin with, GNU will be a kernel plus all the utilities needed to >write and run C programs: editor, shell, C compiler, linker, >assembler, and a few other things.
  - dec0dedab0de 11y ago
    I think the tight coupling of programs is the main reason that systemd causes so much controversy. If it were just an init system, even an opinionated one, there wouldn't be so many people who cared.
    - digi_owl 11y ago
      Exactly. I didn't hear about it until i ran into a notice that consolekit was depreciated, and getting pointed to logind. And logind happened to be tightly coupled to systemd-as-pid1.
- viraptor 11y ago
  > systemd is a suite of basic building blocks for a Linux system. Well, that's a stretch really. systemd is more like tightly coupled systems eating up more and more services and rewriting them systemd way. Things that do look like blocks (udev, journal, logind) are "take systemd way, or nothing". Uselessd is a basic building block.
  - vezzy-fnord 11y ago
    uselessd is a dead project.
    - viraptor 11y ago
      I don't think that's relevant. It's still an example of what a basic block is and that systemd could be split up.
rascul 11y ago
I'm patiently waiting for systemd-kernel.
- jlgaddis 11y ago
  Please don't give them any ideas!
- qznc 11y ago
  https://plus.google.com/u/0/+LennartPoetteringTheOneAndOnly/posts/VUzeRLf5g5m https://plus.google.com/u/0/+LennartPoetteringTheOneAndOnly/... "German language source code comments are not acceptable in the systemd source tree, according to our coding style conventions. In preparation for merging LibreOffice into systemd I have thus started translating a few of their source code comments from German into English." - Lennart Poettering
- pdkl95 11y ago
  Too late, it's called "kdbus", which has been trying to get into the kernel for a while now. ( https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-7767336.html#7767336 https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-7767336.html#7767336 ) Quite a few kernel devs NAKed it on basic security issues, serious design flaws, unnecessary complexity, and unwillingness to explain why kdbus is necessary (that is, why existing features were not inadequate). Instead of taking that hint addressing the serious design problems, GHK (et al) did the usual systemd-cabal tactic of pretending design doesn't matter, indirectly implying their existing design must be perfect and not open for discussion. They patched a few superficial bugs, made some vague posts on LKML about how the finished most of the outstanding issues (wtf/), as if the NAKs never happened. It's currently unclear what will happen now. Then Lennart announces that the latest systemd has kdbus support force-enabled, while suggesting that distros should start testing kdbus with an out-of-tree patch to the kernel... Just like this NTP server issue, the only thing that matters to Lennart is his own world. The issues and concerns of other people are never his problem.
  - JetSetWilly 11y ago
    This is a very distorted picture presented of kdbus. Like most systemd-hating posts, it focusses more on supposed personalities and "drama" than actual technology. kdbus is a new feature. It is normal that it takes time to develop and has bugs and issues along the way. Linus specifically requested that it be enabled in systemd so that it starts to get more testing and exposure. Constructing a grand conspiracy around kdbus is ludicrous.

That's a feature not a bug. The first sentence on the systemd project overview is: systemd is a suite of basic building blocks for a Linux system. After describing the init system it goes on to say: Other parts include a logging daemon, utilities to control basic system configuration like the hostname, date, locale, maintain a list of logged-in users and running containers and virtual machines, system accounts, runtime directories and settings, and daemons to manage simple network configuration, network time synchronization, log forwarding, and name resolution. systemd is intentionally a much bigger project than just the systemd init system.

drjesusphd 11y ago
Then why does it seem like every Debian debate compared it (favorably) to upstart or sysvinit? This is what annoys me about that debate. Systemd arguably _is_ a better init system. But no one asked for a new logger, network config, time daemon, cron, etc. Now you're saying that's always been the intention? Perhaps, but this was not emphasized by the systemd team.
- programmernews3 11y ago
  systemd does logging, network config, time daemon, cron, etc better than the alternatives btw.
  - caf 11y ago
    In the case of the time daemon, that does not actually seem to be the case. It appears to be a far less rigorous approach than that used by ntpd - basically it looks to be similar to running ntpdate in a loop.
    - digi_owl 11y ago
      Seems to be par of the course for systemd sub projects. Their dhcp client violates various security best practices in the name of speed (the whole thing was reminiscent of the Apple debacle related to iOS wifi). And their DNS client quietly grew a cache susceptible to poisoning. A problem known about and solved for a decade in DNS circles.
  - alrs 11y ago
    I'd be in "eat my hat" territory if systemd was a better logger than syslog-ng.
    - ossreality 11y ago
      How is it not?
- crdoconnor 11y ago
  >Then why does it seem like every Debian debate compared it (favorably) to upstart The debian technical committee vote on upstart vs systemd was split 50:50.
- krschultz 11y ago
  I don't know if that was always the intention. I don't know the original authors of systemd personally. The original announcement blog post definitely does not make any claims to be more than just an init system[1]. That said, at one point the Apache Foundation was just about a web server and the GNU project was just about a compiler. I'm not arguing for or against systemd here, I'm just saying that the days of thinking about systemd as just an init system are over. They're building an entire framework for a Linux distro. You can agree or disagree with that, but talking about systemd today as an init system that has sprawled is obfuscating the situation. The systemd maintainers today are clearly trying to go beyond just an init system. [1] http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/systemd.html
  - cremno 11y ago
    >the GNU project was just about a compiler The acronym itself is actually a big hint that this is incorrect. https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/net.unix-wizards/8twfRPM79u0/1xlglzrWrU0J https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/net.unix-wizards/8twfR... >To begin with, GNU will be a kernel plus all the utilities needed to >write and run C programs: editor, shell, C compiler, linker, >assembler, and a few other things.
- dec0dedab0de 11y ago
  I think the tight coupling of programs is the main reason that systemd causes so much controversy. If it were just an init system, even an opinionated one, there wouldn't be so many people who cared.
  - digi_owl 11y ago
    Exactly. I didn't hear about it until i ran into a notice that consolekit was depreciated, and getting pointed to logind. And logind happened to be tightly coupled to systemd-as-pid1.
viraptor 11y ago
> systemd is a suite of basic building blocks for a Linux system. Well, that's a stretch really. systemd is more like tightly coupled systems eating up more and more services and rewriting them systemd way. Things that do look like blocks (udev, journal, logind) are "take systemd way, or nothing". Uselessd is a basic building block.
- vezzy-fnord 11y ago
  uselessd is a dead project.
  - viraptor 11y ago
    I don't think that's relevant. It's still an example of what a basic block is and that systemd could be split up.

rascul 11y ago

I'm patiently waiting for systemd-kernel.

jlgaddis 11y ago
Please don't give them any ideas!
qznc 11y ago
https://plus.google.com/u/0/+LennartPoetteringTheOneAndOnly/posts/VUzeRLf5g5m https://plus.google.com/u/0/+LennartPoetteringTheOneAndOnly/... "German language source code comments are not acceptable in the systemd source tree, according to our coding style conventions. In preparation for merging LibreOffice into systemd I have thus started translating a few of their source code comments from German into English." - Lennart Poettering
pdkl95 11y ago
Too late, it's called "kdbus", which has been trying to get into the kernel for a while now. ( https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-7767336.html#7767336 https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-7767336.html#7767336 ) Quite a few kernel devs NAKed it on basic security issues, serious design flaws, unnecessary complexity, and unwillingness to explain why kdbus is necessary (that is, why existing features were not inadequate). Instead of taking that hint addressing the serious design problems, GHK (et al) did the usual systemd-cabal tactic of pretending design doesn't matter, indirectly implying their existing design must be perfect and not open for discussion. They patched a few superficial bugs, made some vague posts on LKML about how the finished most of the outstanding issues (wtf/), as if the NAKs never happened. It's currently unclear what will happen now. Then Lennart announces that the latest systemd has kdbus support force-enabled, while suggesting that distros should start testing kdbus with an out-of-tree patch to the kernel... Just like this NTP server issue, the only thing that matters to Lennart is his own world. The issues and concerns of other people are never his problem.
- JetSetWilly 11y ago
  This is a very distorted picture presented of kdbus. Like most systemd-hating posts, it focusses more on supposed personalities and "drama" than actual technology. kdbus is a new feature. It is normal that it takes time to develop and has bugs and issues along the way. Linus specifically requested that it be enabled in systemd so that it starts to get more testing and exposure. Constructing a grand conspiracy around kdbus is ludicrous.