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 598971
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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

woegjiub Member since:
2008-11-25

You are aware that sysv scripts can be run by systemd, right?

That being said, given that Slackware is the only major distro that still defaults to sysv, if a project isn't popular enough to get a unit file written for it, it's probably not popular enough to matter.

It's good that systemd can run sysv scripts, though: it means this isn't a problem, so if you can't get a unit file written (they're really dead easy compared to sysv scripts), you can still run your software on Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora, CentOS, Arch, SUSE, Mandriva, etc..

Reply Parent Score: 4

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

woegjiub Member since:
2008-11-25

There's choice, then there's 1000+ distros.

Most of them are just someone's custom theme on top of Ubuntu/Debian, too. Why should that be a distro, instead of just being a theme?

Why use something that is *almost* $BIG_DISTRO_Y instead of $BIG_DISTRO_Y itself?

If your distro doesn't really have anything to set it apart from all of the others, should it really exist, or is it just unnecessary time spent without any real reward or purpose?

Linux on servers only really uses the big distros, same for the destkop.
Unless you're actually doing something unique like nixOS, there is no benefit to not just keeping around an ansible/puppet config to build a custom image of the big distro your custom one would have been made from.


Linux was a hobby project, which is not duplication of effort - it's someone doing something for the purposes of learning.

If minix or HURD were suitable for Linus at the time, he would have gone with them by the way.

"If the GNU kernel had been ready last spring, I'd not have bothered to even start my project: the fact is that it wasn't and still isn't. Linux wins heavily on points of being available now."

http://lwn.net/Articles/395150/

Reply Parent Score: 2

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

woegjiub Member since:
2008-11-25

Actually, it's up to the people who write the software and maintain the distros.

*They don't owe you anything*

If they don't think it's worthwhile supporting your favourite tool or methodology, it's up to you to support it.
Compatibility with multiple init systems isn't just a magical free and easy thing that falls from the sky.
Maintenance takes real work from real people.

Reply Parent Score: 4