Linked by jessesmith on Wed 5th Nov 2014 10:39 UTC
Linux Over the past year I've been reading a lot of opinions on the new init technology, systemd. Some people think systemd is wonderful, the bee's knees. Others claim that systemd is broken by design. Some see systemd as a unifying force, a way to unite the majority of the Linux distributions. Others see systemd as a growing blob that is slowly becoming an overly large portion of the operating system. One thing that has surprised me a little is just how much people care about systemd, whether their opinion of the technology is good or bad. People in favour faithfully (and sometimes falsely) make wonderful claims about what systemd is and what it can supposedly do. Opponents claim systemd will divide the Linux community and drive many technical users to other operating systems. There is a lot of hype and surprisingly few people presenting facts.
E-mail Print r 10   · Read More · 138 Comment(s)
Thread beginning with comment 598956
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
by immanos on Wed 5th Nov 2014 10:32 UTC
Member since:

Well written piece.

I'd just like to add that it's kind of funny how much controversy the startup sequencing in Linux causes, considering it's a non-topic on other OS's.

Edited 2014-11-05 10:33 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Interesting
by tidux on Wed 5th Nov 2014 17:30 in reply to "Interesting"
tidux Member since:

Other OSes aren't generally flexible enough to specify a different init on the kernel command line, either.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE: Interesting
by grat on Thu 6th Nov 2014 05:08 in reply to "Interesting"
grat Member since:

I'd just like to add that it's kind of funny how much controversy the startup sequencing in Linux causes, considering it's a non-topic on other OS's.

Not really. Boot initialization is a complete mystery to nearly every Windows user (and admin). OSX caters to people who don't *want* to know what's under the hood.

So really, that leaves linux. And the reason that systemd has gotten as far as it has without controversy is because until now, it hasn't hit the server admins. Now that Debian and Red Hat are moving to it, the "old school" admins are getting into the discussion.

We don't care about boot times-- a reboot happens (maybe) once a month during the maintenance window, and frequently happens unsupervised.

We typically don't care about dependencies, because init/upstart handles it well enough (these stories about race conditions in init just don't happen in production systems-- Not once have I had a race condition in the past 20+ years. I have however, had systemd insist a path wasn't mounted when it had already reported the path as mounted, and as a result, it wouldn't start services).

We *do* care about troubleshooting, and logging, and while we can send a dmesg log to a central syslog server, a binary log is a bit more painful to deal with, and for me, systemd seems to go out of it's way to hide what's happening.

I don't need that.

All of these wonderful things that systemd promises, don't help me with my job. They make it more complicated, and they don't improve the performance of the web/database/file server, or make the system any more secure.

Fortunately, my puppet infrastructure is well developed enough that for the most part, I can ignore systemd.

On my home computer (openSuSE), it's only mildly irritating (see "mounted path not mounted" dependency issue).

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Interesting
by nhubbard on Thu 6th Nov 2014 17:59 in reply to "Interesting"
nhubbard Member since:

That's because it isn't just the startup process - it's absorbing more and more things every day.

Reply Parent Score: 2