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 599042
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
It isn't about choice
by randomshinichi on Wed 5th Nov 2014 21:05 UTC
randomshinichi
Member since:
2013-04-09

The author of this article forgot that before systemd, we never had a choice anyway. And that was never a problem. Nobody complained.

Now that it is possible to have a choice in init systems people are complaining, but most distros are right in making only one init system available because it deeply affects everything. You might as well make two separate distros. And who wants to spend the effort when one is clearly better than the other?

Edited 2014-11-05 21:06 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: It isn't about choice
by jessesmith on Wed 5th Nov 2014 22:54 in reply to "It isn't about choice"
jessesmith Member since:
2010-03-11

>> "The author of this article forgot that before systemd, we never had a choice anyway. And that was never a problem. Nobody complained."

Why would they complain, they had a working init system? People aren't complaining because they want addition options, they are complaining about their previous option being taken away. If you have vanilla ice cream and you like vanilla, of course you won't complain. If someone else says you can have vanilla and chocolate, again there is no reason to complain. But if someone comes along and takes away your vanilla option and says you must always eat chocolate now, of course people will get upset.

>> "most distros are right in making only one init system available because it deeply affects everything"

There in lies the problem. A good init system should not affect everything. Init software is supposed to bring up the system, reap zombie processes and (in some cases) manage services. That's it. Nothing about that should affect any other software packages if init is implemented correctly.

In fact, I would like to point out it is currently trivial to swap between SysV and systemd on a Debian installation. It takes two short command lines and the system works exactly the same with either one. Obviously init does not affect large portions of the operating system or that would not be possible.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: It isn't about choice
by vellon on Thu 6th Nov 2014 13:29 in reply to "RE: It isn't about choice"
vellon Member since:
2014-11-06

And after systemd, they will still have a working init system, so why complain?

Server admins may have to learn a few new things (which may be a reason for their resistance), but users will never see or care, unless it is in reduced startup and shutdown time.

It is more like a company changing the ingredients in vanilla. As long as it tastes the same....

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: It isn't about choice
by javispedro on Thu 6th Nov 2014 06:14 in reply to "It isn't about choice"
javispedro Member since:
2014-06-04

Untrue.

We had several init choices (I was a initng user for quite a long time). Swapping between them was an adventure, but certainly doable. To this day there are tens of init replacements to choose from. In Debian there were talks about a "metainit" system.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: It isn't about choice
by hobgoblin on Thu 6th Nov 2014 18:52 in reply to "It isn't about choice"
hobgoblin Member since:
2005-07-06

Err, no.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Init#Replacements_for_init

Many of those came before systemd, and did what systemd does at its core (async daemon startup).

Some of them can either be init or run on top of init.

Btw. What we call init does not have to be sysv init.

Slackware use BSD init, and Gobolinux use bootscripts that it on top of the syv init binary.

The likely reason for sysv to live on was that it already booted fast enough for most, and it was easy enough to grok and debug.

Edited 2014-11-06 18:53 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3