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.
Thread beginning with comment 598969
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
ddjones
Member since:
2014-10-28

I'm so happy that we have you to make decisions for every one else. Imagine if we had to study the issue, analyze the facts and make a decision on the merits or lack thereof ourselves! What a lot of effort and wasted time! Fortunately, we have you to do that for us so everyone else can get on with their lives and forget about the issue. It's truly kind and noble of you to sacrifice so much so that the rest of us can don't have to.

Reply Parent Score: 7

woegjiub Member since:
2008-11-25

It's a non-issue, I'm just pointing out the way the wind's blowing.

There are *zero* benefits to using sysv init on a pure Linux install-base, and Linux has been held back by limiting itself to the lowest common denominator for far too long.
Now we have proper, seamless cgroup usage in init! Using containers is simpler and nicer than ever, all of the core os binaries are rigorously standardised, documented and unit-tested, in cooperation with each other. The level of innovation at the userland level has never been this high.

It's no surprise application and distro developers want to make use of all of the great features and opportunities systemd provides. It's not up to them to work on legacy init-system support instead of stomping bugs and adding features that directly relate to the program, as opposed to being about the management of programs by the OS.
If you want sysv support for applications, write some scripts.
If you want sysv support in a distro, make one.
Most projects have already decided; that's crap that they're sick of having to do, and systemd provides a superior future.

There's no downside to you, either: don't like binary logging? Set journald to use files.
Want to write bash scripts instead of reliable, predictable service files? Go ahead, sysvinit scripts are fully supported.

Systemd just means more stability and a more common core os for all distros. If we're lucky, a lot of the distros will die off, sparing us that ridiculous duplication of effort.

Edited 2014-11-05 12:16 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6

spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

Well the problem is for software that depends on SysV init. Their software will just stop working suddently and they will have to invest a lot of time making work on Debian if they even bother. I understand the argument in favor of Systemd but saying there is no downside is just wrong.

Edited 2014-11-05 12:58 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

grat Member since:
2006-02-02

If we're lucky, a lot of the distros will die off, sparing us that ridiculous duplication of effort.


.... you mean choice, right?

You know Linux started out as a "ridiculous duplication of effort", yes?

Reply Parent Score: 4

yochanon Member since:
2014-11-06

You utterly and completely missed the whole point of the article. *CHOICE*. We are losing it at a rate that is like a Borg ship in a movie! People like *you*, who believe we don't need choice and who think you're opinion about what's best for the rest of us peons are what's wrong with this planet as you are doing nothing more than aping the way governments grow and eventually become something *NOT* very good for the people it governs.

Reply Parent Score: 3

Coxy Member since:
2006-07-01

He is not making the decision... I find it funny that people are always banging on about how great linux is, because if you don't like something, you can view the code and rewrite it yourself... poettering has... and everyone is complaining that he shouldn't have... well that's what happens if you keep banging on about people being able to write their own code.

If you and the other grey beards want a unix like OS, use one. I use linux, not unix, couldn't care about recursive accronyms (and whether or not they are funny), I couldn't care about the unix way of doing things. If you do, you know the drill: write your own code, submit a patch, if all else fails fork it.

To be honest, as an end user - I really couldn't give a fuck what is used, whether it is teh DE, the display manager or anything else... I can understand why some people hate poettering (see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTdUmlGxVo0) but all he is done is do what linux/unix advocates have been advocating for donkey's years.

Reply Parent Score: 9

ddjones Member since:
2014-10-28

He is not making the decision... I find it funny that people are always banging on about how great linux is, because if you don't like something, you can view the code and rewrite it yourself... poettering has... and everyone is complaining that he shouldn't have... well that's what happens if you keep banging on about people being able to write their own code.


While I'm sure you can find a few quotes of individuals saying Poettering should never have written systemd, that isn't the stance of most people who oppose it. They don't object to the existence of systemd. They object to it being a dependency on a substantial number of other programs. That's what this editorial was about. It becomes effectively impossible to use the distro without it. And that most certain is someone else making the decision for everyone.

Reply Parent Score: 5

Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

I'm so happy that we have you to make decisions for every one else.

The people who do the actual work, as in making/providing the software, are indeed the ones who get to make the decisions for those who aren't.

There's nothing new here, if upstream chooses to take their software in a different directon than you want you can certainly ask them not to, but in the end the choice is theirs.

Your choice is to either step up and maintain a fork/patches which corresponds to your needs, or vote with your feet.

Reply Parent Score: 6

TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

"I'm so happy that we have you to make decisions for every one else.

The people who do the actual work, as in making/providing the software, are indeed the ones who get to make the decisions for those who aren't.
"

Actually in this case it's not even that. Most software in Linux doesn't depend on SystemD; only GNOME does.

Distros are switching because they want to support GNOME and the easiest path to do so is to switch the whole system over regardless of whether the user uses GNOME or not.

So, in the end, the decision of the GNOME folks to take a hard dependency on SystemD is screwing everyone else.

Reply Parent Score: 4