You are not logged in.

#1 2012-08-20 13:46:59

pablokal
Administrator
From: Nijmegen, Holland
Registered: 2010-10-12
Posts: 2,954
Website

Systemd, some reading about what, how and why with some critical views

Debian debates Systemd: http://lwn.net/Articles/452865/

A few observations about systemd by juliusz Chroboczek: http://lwn.net/Articles/453004/

I find the negative observations of great importance:

The bad
=======

Systemd is bloated
------------------

Systemd is bloated.  It apparently attempts to take over the roles of
init, cron, at, inet, ConsoleKit, sethostname, modprobe, mount -a, and
probably others.  The result is that you end up running 50000 lines of
C code as PID 1, as compared to the 8000 lines of SV init or the 6000
lines of runit.


Systemd is layered strangely
----------------------------

For a low-level piece of infrastructure, systemd interacts with a lot of
high-level software; while this might be okay for a workstation running
Gnome, it makes me wonder whether it will be usable on servers.
A cursory look shows that systemd intrinsically depends on D-Bus (the
*desktop* bus) and knows about Plymouth, RedHat's implementation of
a splash screen.  More on that below.


Systemd hard-wires special cases
--------------------------------

Rather than relying on distribution-specific shell scripts, systemd
hard-wires much of its behaviour in C code.  The most shocking case,
already mentioned above, is that systemd interacts with Plymouth.  This
is not done by using some generic early-boot protocol -- systemd
contains code that is explicitly meant to communicate with Plymouth, the
one and only implementation of a splash screen.

Another case that I've actually been bitten by is that systemd
hard-wires runlevel 5 in its SV init compatibility code; that's merely
inflexible under Fedora, but clearly wrong under Debian.  (I've now
fixed my system to run the exact same initscripts in all four multi-user
runlevels.)


Systemd deprecates shell scripts
--------------------------------

With systemd, you're no longer supposed to write your service
definitions in shell; instead, you write them in systemd's declarative
language.  Where you used to say

  ulimit -d 40000000

you now say

  LimitDATA = 40000000

The trouble with that is that while we all know how to write shell
scripts, systemd requires that we learn a new language.  What is more,
we are now limited to configuring those aspects that systemd's author
has implemented; this is unlike shell scripts, where we can configure
anything that can be configured either from the shell or from a utility
callable from the shell.  (Compare with runit, which simply ships with
a utility to change a bunch of process paramaters not otherwise
tweakable from the shell, and expects you to write a single-line shell
script in order to tweak process state.)


Systemd is Linux-specific
-------------------------

Systemd is specific to Linux.  This is strange, since the only feature
of Linux used by systemd that doesn't have an exact equivalent on other
systems, cgroups, is optional in systemd.


Systemd's author is annoying
----------------------------

While I haven't had the pleasure to meet Lennart in private, I find his
public persona annoying, both on-line and at conferences.  He practices
misleading advertising[2], likes to claim that the universal adoption of
systemd by all distributions is a done thing[3], and attempts to bully
anyone who has the gall to think that the discussion is still open[4].

Allan from Arch pushing systemd :
http://allanmcrae.com/2012/08/are-we-re … rch-linux/
Allan, a more recent post in which this thread is mentioned: http://allanmcrae.com/2012/09/replacing … rch-linux/

but he gets some great rebuttals: [http://lwn.net/Articles/511193/
Slackware criticism on systemd: http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions … md-885228/

Alternative for systmd, a new fork of udev
See this thread for an alternative udev developed to circumvent the need of systemd: https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-9 … ight-.html
The thread also gives   a nice insight in why systemd is so controversial among some Linux users.


Getting your questions answered here at ArchBang Forums
Please! Always give hardware info, if there is a chance that 's relevant: #lspci -vnn
On Arch(bang) and Openbox: http://stillstup.blogspot.com/

Offline

#2 2012-08-20 23:13:21

Mr Green
Iso Developer
Registered: 2010-11-07
Posts: 4,776

Re: Systemd, some reading about what, how and why with some critical views

Allan wrote:

Now remember how I said that I do not deal with configuration file updates. My system is littered with .pacnew files

From a recent post on his blog.


Follow me on twitter @mrgreen_linux

Online

#3 2012-08-21 06:11:40

scjet
Moderator
From: Windsor, Canada
Registered: 2010-12-01
Posts: 1,167

Re: Systemd, some reading about what, how and why with some critical views

I remember, way back when, Solaris9, or was it 10 ?,  replaced ALL of it's "init.d" startup scripts with "SMF" structure. - (Linux's newer "systemd" is conspicuously similar) -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_Ma … t_Facility
This was long before "systemd" arrived in Fedora/rhel.
It was supposed to be an easy-to-use tool, ..., for server "Administration", instead, it was welcomed with a lot of "...negative observations..." similar to Pablo's post above.  In fact, SMF/systemd would have been better for Desktop's/Workstations, rather that Servers. -IMHO.
Eventually Solaris got it right, no bugs anymore, but unfortunately in the end, that didn't help Sun much wink

I don't understand this new and recent love-affair between "Allan", and systemd, and Fedora, ... ???,  but... hopefully in the long run Arch dev's will meld these changes more nicely into Arch in the future.
I guess the definition of "K.I.S.S", these days in Arch, "is in the eye of the" Dev's, and not just for the end-User's anymore.

EDIT: pheew,..., and I hope I don't get "Banned at ArchBang Forums" as well, for my above opinion(s).
cool

Last edited by scjet (2012-08-21 06:56:00)


The "BSD" things in life are "Free", and "Open", and so is ArchBang!

Offline

#4 2012-08-21 06:19:50

oliver
Administrator
Registered: 2010-11-04
Posts: 1,771

Re: Systemd, some reading about what, how and why with some critical views

scjet wrote:

I remember, way back when, Solaris9, or was it 10 ?,  replaced ALL of it's "init.d" startup scripts with "SMF" structure. - (Linux's newer "systemd" is conspicuously similar) -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Service_Ma … t_Facility
This was long before "systemd" arrived in Fedora/rhel.
It was supposed to be an easy-to-use tool, ..., for server "Administration", instead, it was welcomed with a lot of "...negative observations..." similar to Pablo's post above.  In fact, SMF/systemd would have been better for Desktop's rather that Servers. -IMHO.
Eventually Solaris got it right, no bugs anymore, but, in the end, that didn't help Sun much wink

Yeah - it was Sol10.  I remember booting up for the first time and thinking 'where are my startup messages?' and then seeing the login prompt :-)  I'm still not sure whether I dislike SMF/systemd or whether I'm just so used to and familiar with the init.d/rc.d method


:wq!

Offline

#5 2012-08-21 07:46:42

Mr Green
Iso Developer
Registered: 2010-11-07
Posts: 4,776

Re: Systemd, some reading about what, how and why with some critical views

Been messing with systemd on a virtual machine just to see how easy it is to set up. Finally got around to doing the same on my desktop and now have systemd up and running. initscripts and sysvinit are now removed.

if you want messages at boot simply remove 'quiet' from kernel line

[mrgreen@macmillan ~]$ systemd-analyze
Startup finished in 3382ms (kernel) + 7171ms (userspace) = 10553ms

Roughly 10.5 seconds to boot


Follow me on twitter @mrgreen_linux

Online

#6 2012-08-21 13:50:31

pablokal
Administrator
From: Nijmegen, Holland
Registered: 2010-10-12
Posts: 2,954
Website

Re: Systemd, some reading about what, how and why with some critical views

and I hope I don't get "Banned at ArchBang Forums" as well, for my above opinion(s).

I think that until now no one was banned from the forums for his opinions; only people are banned for reasons of commercial propaganda/spam or by mistake when the mod seems  to perceive, they are spamming.


Getting your questions answered here at ArchBang Forums
Please! Always give hardware info, if there is a chance that 's relevant: #lspci -vnn
On Arch(bang) and Openbox: http://stillstup.blogspot.com/

Offline

#7 2012-08-21 15:19:27

oliver
Administrator
Registered: 2010-11-04
Posts: 1,771

Re: Systemd, some reading about what, how and why with some critical views

I hope no-one is ever banned for an opinion - unless they express it in an offensive way.


:wq!

Offline

#8 2012-08-21 23:24:01

Mr Green
Iso Developer
Registered: 2010-11-07
Posts: 4,776

Re: Systemd, some reading about what, how and why with some critical views

I only ban people who have vowels in there username smile

Having used Arch for a little while I could never understand the logic behind /etc/pacman.d why put mirrorlist in a separate directory. Then the .d disease grew...

Suppose that systemd gives you control over services and how they affect boot and general system running, but most of the ram/time saving could be done by removing everything you do not need [KISS logic]

Am sure there must be a way to view initscripts/sysvinit in the same way as systemd

Opps rambling again smile


Follow me on twitter @mrgreen_linux

Online

#9 2012-08-22 06:59:24

ratcheer
Member
Registered: 2011-10-08
Posts: 113

Re: Systemd, some reading about what, how and why with some critical views

Here is a very informative post by one of the top Arch developers:

https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php … 0#p1149530

Tim

Offline

#10 2012-08-22 14:30:28

pablokal
Administrator
From: Nijmegen, Holland
Registered: 2010-10-12
Posts: 2,954
Website

Re: Systemd, some reading about what, how and why with some critical views

Here the main argument of this post:

Transition:

We have tried to make this smooth.

0) The best approach is to first bring your rc.conf up-to-date according to the recommendations in "man rc.conf". It should essentially only contain your DAEMONS array (and a few other things, depending on your setup, see manpage for details). This will work both with initscripts and systemd so it is safe to do ahead of time, and make sure everything works as it should.

1) Install systemd, but you do not need to remove initscripts. You can now chose between the two at runtime (by adding init=/bin/systemd to your kernel commandline). If you do this systemd will keep respecting rc.conf and use rc scripts if systemd unit files can not be found.

2) Then you can move your system (hopefully seamlessly) over to a native systemd configuration: do (0) if you did not already, then find the corresponding systemd service file for every daemon in your daemons array and enable it using "systemctl enable <daemon>.service". Once this is done rc.conf is not needed by systemd at all anymore. Go through rc.local and rc.local.shutdown and turn them into service files (or, if you intend to keep them as they are, copy /usr/lib/systemd/system/rc-local{,.shutdown}.service to /etc/systemd/system/).

3) Once the above works ok, and you are confident that you don't need to revert to initscripts, then you can install systemd-sysvcompat, which will conflict (and hence remove) sysvinit+initscripts (and pacsave rc.conf, rc.local and rc.local.shutdown). You can now also remove init=/bin/systemd from your kernel commandline as /sbin/init will now be a symlink to systemd.

Benefits:

I have spent too much time arguing against the perceived deficiencies of systemd (such as: "it is not written in bash", "it was started by Lennart Poettering", "I don't like the (optional) on-disk format of the journal", "it uses dbus", "systemd's PID1 does more and is bigger than sysvinit's PID1", "I think there might be this other project that possibly is doing something similar. I don't really know anything about it, but I'm pretty sure it is better than systemd" and I'm sure there are many more). I strongly believe that 1) all of these perceived deficiencies are not deficiencies, but are actually benefits 2) even if I'm wrong, these things are not hugely important. So, with that out of the way: let's ignore all of those old boring arguments and I'll outline a few things that I find awesome about systemd, and why I think we should all be very excited about soon being able to use it. In no particular order:

0) it is hotplug capable: systemd assumes that all resources may appear and dissapear at any time. If you plug in your external harddrive after systemd has booted, it will be fsck'ed and mounted correctly. This is unlike initscripts which relies on all disks being enumerated and ready when it starts fsck, and then it relies on fsck of all disks being finished before it starts mounting any of them. Hotplug is important, not only because it is convenient to be able to insert/remove hardware while the system is running, but also because that's how the linux kernel does boot: every device appears to be "hotplugged" as the kernel becomes aware of it, so with a very fast boot we can no longer assume that all devices are ready and waiting for us when we need them (even if they were plugged in when the computer started). In reality this is often not a problem, but if you ever had your rootfs on an external USB harddrive you might have experienced problems (and as things become faster and faster more problems like this will crop up).

1) we can know the state of the system: systemd keeps track of all daemons, and all processes that are started, and who owns what, and when something fails, etc. Also, using the (awesome) journal all syslog() entries and writes to stdout/stderr by all processes are captured by systemd. These are stored with enough meta-data so that you can very easily retrieve say "all entries from a certain service/binary/pid" or "all entries written by the kernel regarding a given device", etc. In addition to logging this information, and showing it to you, systemd will allow you to specify (easily) what to do in a wide range of possible error-scenarios: "a service shuts down normally/with an error/ on a signa" or "a service has not sent its watchdog signal in the designated time" or "a service has shutdown with an error 10 times in the last half hour". The recent addition of hardware watchdog support also allows you to say "restart the machine if systemd itself is not responding".

2) it is modular: all of what is now rc.sysinit is split out into many independent services, each of which is well documented and easy to understand. I.e., if you don't like how  systemd e.g. does it's fstab handling, then you can write your own little helper (in bash if you wish) to replace the official one. Doing this in the old initscripts is much harder because 1) it is not so clear which parts of rc.sysinit are dependent on eachother 2) any changes you do you'll have to merge on every update.

3) it allows dbus/udev to go back to doing the task they are meant to do: both udev and dbus are currently (mis)-used to start daemons/long-running services on demand. In the case of dbus this is by design, but in the case of udev it is not. Either way, it is not what those daemons were built to do, so in keeping with the UNIX principle of one task per daemon, it is great that we can now let systemd (whose job it is to manage daemons) take this over. That is, udev and dbus can both signal systemd to start a certain daemon, and it will behave like if it was started in any other way (you have the logs, status etc). One problem that this solves is the inherent race-condition in some daemons (I think bluetoothd was guilty of this at some point) allowing both being started as soon as possible on boot (say by putting it in DAEMONS), and to be started on-demand by dbus. Systemd makes sure that both these things can happen, and if they do happen at the same time you will only end up with one instance of the daemon as expected.

4) we can reduce the number of explicit ordering dependencies between daemons (this might require changes to the daemons in question): using socket activation, automounting and dbus activation we are able to forget about stuff like "dbus must be running before we start avahi" or "yp-bind must be started after networkmanager". systemd can create sockets early on, before any daemons are started, and then pass the socket to the relevant daemon when it gets around to starting it. This means that anything can connect to anything else, without caring about whether or not the other daemon has finished starting yet. The kernel will simply buffer the requests whilst we wait and deliver them when it can. Notice that this does not actually remove any dependencies (so if there are circular deps, they will still be there), but it means we no longer have to specify them, nor worry about races between them.

5) we get a lot of security/sandboxing features for free: you can simply add some configuration options to the unit files in question to isolate them from the system in various ways. This was of course also possible before, but it required you to write lots of boilerplate code in every rc script, and this kind of things are very error prone, and best reviewed by people who know about this stuff.

6) systemd service files can (and hopefully will!) be written and distributed upstream: rather than every distro writing their own rc script (with their own set of trivial bugs and misunderstandings) the people who know the software the best (upstream) possibly with some input from the people who know the init system the best (systemd devs) can write "perfect" services that should just work everywhere. We have seen some of this already, and I think it is hugely benefitial. Even for distros who don't pick up systemd yet, this will allow them to at least have an idea oh how the software is meant to be initialized.

7) systemd is a cross-distro project: every major and many, many minor distros have had people contributing to systemd. last i heard even two debian devs have commit access to the repo, among many others. systemd upstream is very accommodating of different needs and different use-cases (as long as they are presented on technical grounds) and have been a pleasure to work with so far. We are getting the joint experience of a lot of people/projects who have worked on different init systems for a long time, I think this is one of the most important "features" one could have.

8) logind will finally deliver on what consolekit was supposed to do: we can now track user sessions and seats, assign permissions to resources on-the-fly etc. This should be the topic of a separate message, as it is too much to get into. Suffice it to say that I'm very happy that we are finally getting these features working as they should.

9) systemd is fast: Or is it really? Some claim there is no difference compared with initscripts, a very few claim it is slower, the vast majority claim it is a lot faster. I claim that I really don't care. The above points (which is just what I could think of at the top of my head, so not exhaustive by any means) would hopefully convince you that systemd is the right choice irrespective of its speed, and once you try it out you might be in for a pleasant surprise ;-)

Rebuttal:

I have spent too much time arguing against the perceived deficiencies of systemd...

Blah.. blah.. blah.. bottom line is that of your listed 10 bullets.. 95% of your user base does not need or care about any of them. You are taking a set of simple basic functions and turning them into one big interdependent mess of complexity.. definitely not KISS and definitely not in a good direction for any distro. In the past, every time this kind of thing is attempted, where simple is purposely made complex.. what ever the project.. it ends up never completely working right ever, which removes confidence in using the system. I fear this is where arch is headed.. time to bail.

What amazes me that an important decision like this causes so much discussion. Shouldn't this just be broadly accepted by almost everyone for it to be called a wise decision?


Getting your questions answered here at ArchBang Forums
Please! Always give hardware info, if there is a chance that 's relevant: #lspci -vnn
On Arch(bang) and Openbox: http://stillstup.blogspot.com/

Offline

#11 2012-08-22 17:30:23

handy
Member
Registered: 2011-11-03
Posts: 487

Re: Systemd, some reading about what, how and why with some critical views

I don't understand what the problem is?

Systemd works now. It is still being developed so it is going to become even more efficient, effective, reliable & simpler to work with (most users won't/don't even know its there). The change over in Arch isn't that hard to do (thanks to the wiki), it is a walk in the park compared to changing over to grub(2) for users of UEFI motherboards.

If the end user experience is improved, & I believe that systemd does exactly that, then why wouldn't you use it?

Systemd it would seem, has become quite a uniting force bringing together experienced Linux developers from many & varied backgrounds. I think that many & varied benefits to the Linux community may flow from this.

Offline

#12 2012-08-23 13:42:41

pablokal
Administrator
From: Nijmegen, Holland
Registered: 2010-10-12
Posts: 2,954
Website

Re: Systemd, some reading about what, how and why with some critical views

If the end user experience is improved, & I believe that systemd does exactly that, then why wouldn't you use it?

So why you don't use Apple then? It promises the best user experience and you have to stop thinking about your OS.
I mean this sums it up:

You are taking a set of simple basic functions and turning them into one big interdependent mess of complexity.. definitely not KISS and definitely not in a good direction for any distro.

For me Linux is about control and configurability. I never liked the services concept of Microsoft and this systemd looks a lot like it.

More and more the basics are made more and more complex (compare also rc. conf and grub legacy) for a debatable improvement.


Getting your questions answered here at ArchBang Forums
Please! Always give hardware info, if there is a chance that 's relevant: #lspci -vnn
On Arch(bang) and Openbox: http://stillstup.blogspot.com/

Offline

#13 2012-08-23 14:14:03

scjet
Moderator
From: Windsor, Canada
Registered: 2010-12-01
Posts: 1,167

Re: Systemd, some reading about what, how and why with some critical views

Grub2(fiasco), Systemd, ... maybe even Dracut for next year?,... all these things were added successfully before, albeit by more experienced User's, programmers,...', long before they started being 'forced" upon us via the new arch .iso's by these so-called "Top" Arch Dev's.
All of that could have been fine-tuned as pkgs, or in AUR, to add later, if you like.
imho, Arch should have always represented KISS to the bone. YOU change it to what you want after.
"rc.conf", "grub-legacy", just to make a point system-wise, was about as BSD-simple as "init" as you could get. It worked, and is blindingly easy to fix, you want "power-windows" ? then install them(systemd,...) after. No big deal.
  Just watch though, if the next thing on the chopping-block will likely be "mkinitcpio" ?, -but that's becuae "Dracut" is gonna be much better.... -Lol. (yes, I'm being sarcastic).

If something works, and is modifiable enough to keep it working then why over-complicate it with tools/apps, that are much harder to repair/fix,...
So to me, Arch is going a bit too complex in area's that it does NOT need to.
"New" schtuff, 50% of the time, does NOT always mean it's better.
again, my 2 cents -which are only worth about .75 Euro cents.
smile

And I'll tell you about Apple, as well, MacOSX was built upon a lot of "sweat", from the entire BSD/Unix-development community, and what did they/we(BSD-community) ever get out of it ?! -pffft nada, zero back. Alas, the "BSD-License" leaves them vulnerable for this kind-of violation.

I really don't have a lot of respect for Apple, atleast not anymore.

Needless to say, I personally "wanted" Arch to stay as simple as a one-file config script with "pacman" at the helm, as possible.
I'd be happy with just that.
Unfortunately, maybe this is just too hard to do when you're also trying to keep up with the latest-bleeding-edge Linux kernel at the same time. -  I dunno?.

But hey, for better or worse, Arch is still Arch, branching off into all these more recent and "new"er tangents' instead.

Last edited by scjet (2012-08-23 14:45:07)


The "BSD" things in life are "Free", and "Open", and so is ArchBang!

Offline

#14 2012-08-23 17:53:47

handy
Member
Registered: 2011-11-03
Posts: 487

Re: Systemd, some reading about what, how and why with some critical views

pablokal wrote:

If the end user experience is improved, & I believe that systemd does exactly that, then why wouldn't you use it?

So why you don't use Apple then? It promises the best user experience and you have to stop thinking about your OS.

I have an OS/X box, which unfortunately due to its internal optical drive failure I can no longer install anything bar OS/X or an MS OS, via an external USB drive. sad 

I dislike OS/X for a number of reasons, here are a few of them:-

1. The inability to control the size of all of the fonts, some fonts you can't change the size of at all, others max out at 16pt. This situation is ridiculous when you are running a 24" 1920 x 1200 res' monitor. 

2. The Finder is seriously flawed (Path Finder is a great remedy, though imperfect in itself).

3. The Apple community oft has a somewhat glamorous yuppie quality as opposed to the generally more tech head style of the Linux/BSD/Haiku ... communities that I mix with. Personal taste their really.

pablokal wrote:

I mean this sums it up:

You are taking a set of simple basic functions and turning them into one big interdependent mess of complexity.. definitely not KISS and definitely not in a good direction for any distro.

For me Linux is about control and configurability. I never liked the services concept of Microsoft and this systemd looks a lot like it.

More and more the basics are made more and more complex (compare also rc. conf and grub legacy) for a debatable improvement.

I think that the changes being made to Linux by the dev's are to make it easier for people to be able to deal with the current & future impositions of hardware on the users of the Linux systems. More people are using Linux, more will come to use Linux in the future (there may be a wave of them after Win 8. is released?), most users don't want to be stuffing about with their system, they just want it to work & do what ever it is that they want to do with their computer.

In reality, those of us that like getting into operating systems are only a tiny minority of the population of computer users in this world.

Offline

#15 2012-08-24 06:59:31

ratcheer
Member
Registered: 2011-10-08
Posts: 113

Re: Systemd, some reading about what, how and why with some critical views

So, where is there still to go for those who want ground-up simplicity and control? Just on this one topic, all Linux distros seem to be going to either systemd, OpenRC, or Upstart. Siduction Linux still seems to be a plain init-based system, but I seem to be hearing that Debian will go to systemd, so how far away would it be for Siduction?

I am not so much dead-set against complexity, but I am definitely for as much software freedom (in the sense of liberty) as I can have. And the more complex and hand-holding the system software is, the more liberty-robbing stuff can be slipped in, from DRM to monitoring to whatever else can be thought up.

If I am going way off topic, I will not be offended if this post is removed.

Tim

Last edited by ratcheer (2012-08-24 06:59:54)

Offline

#16 2012-08-29 04:59:12

pablokal
Administrator
From: Nijmegen, Holland
Registered: 2010-10-12
Posts: 2,954
Website

Re: Systemd, some reading about what, how and why with some critical views

See this thread for an alternative udev developed to circumvent the need of systemd: https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-9 … ight-.html
The thread also gives   a nice insight in why systemd is so controversial among some Linux users.


Getting your questions answered here at ArchBang Forums
Please! Always give hardware info, if there is a chance that 's relevant: #lspci -vnn
On Arch(bang) and Openbox: http://stillstup.blogspot.com/

Offline

#17 2012-08-29 05:57:33

ratcheer
Member
Registered: 2011-10-08
Posts: 113

Re: Systemd, some reading about what, how and why with some critical views

So, Gentoo is also becoming polluted to the point that some of them want to fork the distro, or am I misunderstanding?

Tim

PS - Ah, I see. They are just forking udev, which is what it says, but it was hard to comprehend. But doesn't that actually create a separate fork of the whole distro?

Last edited by ratcheer (2012-08-29 06:08:22)

Offline

#18 2012-08-29 13:19:15

pablokal
Administrator
From: Nijmegen, Holland
Registered: 2010-10-12
Posts: 2,954
Website

Re: Systemd, some reading about what, how and why with some critical views

No, they just create an easy way for gentoo as a distro to stay out of the systemd trap.


Getting your questions answered here at ArchBang Forums
Please! Always give hardware info, if there is a chance that 's relevant: #lspci -vnn
On Arch(bang) and Openbox: http://stillstup.blogspot.com/

Offline

#19 2012-08-29 16:07:48

scjet
Moderator
From: Windsor, Canada
Registered: 2010-12-01
Posts: 1,167

Re: Systemd, some reading about what, how and why with some critical views

IMHO:
Also, Lennart Poettering is FULL of "hubris".
When he couldn't get his own way forcing his "pulseaudio" mess in Linux -which amounted to nothing, then he turned to "systemd", which, with the "blessing" of "RedHat"- is what the "new and improved" Arch(devs)/RedHat is now buying.
-get the drift now ?

Is "sytemd" bad ? -NO, of course not, it has tremendous potential -in the right hands, ...., just like anything Linux.
But YES, Poettering "pissed" on BSD when he said: summarily "...there is no need to port systemd to BSD/Unix, everyone, (meaning Developers), should just use/code on Linux..."
-that is kinda unwarranted "arrogance" in my books. -if you wanna talk "real" UNIX ?!

Personally, I take a great offense to that. I mean, it should NOT be about any single distro and/or UNIX deriviative.
BSD/Unix, is about as FREE as you can get too, and in many other ways.
Instead, it should be about the freedom of "portability".
So, my message to Herr Poetteringer would be: "Either stand by helping-with-sharing, or atleast "stop" pretending too."
The (Arch)Linux, of late, that I have had the pleasure of knowing, did NOT have any BS-in-betweeners" back then. And there must have been a reason for that.
smile

Last edited by scjet (2012-08-29 17:05:10)


The "BSD" things in life are "Free", and "Open", and so is ArchBang!

Offline

#20 2012-08-29 16:58:45

handy
Member
Registered: 2011-11-03
Posts: 487

Re: Systemd, some reading about what, how and why with some critical views

I'm a great believer in freedom of choice, & I don't like monopolies (naturally). So I'm glad to see that people are taking steps to circumvent the "this is how Linux must be done" imposition from above.

One of the great things about the open source community is that it doesn't have to stand for that kind of imposition.

As I've previously mentioned, I have no problems in my day to day usage of systemd. As far as the deeper technical aspects are concerned, they go right over my head. I'm not a developer.

Offline

#21 2012-09-01 07:05:48

Mr Green
Iso Developer
Registered: 2010-11-07
Posts: 4,776

Re: Systemd, some reading about what, how and why with some critical views

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lennart_Poettering

'Currently works for Red Hat'

aka Microsoft


Follow me on twitter @mrgreen_linux

Online

#22 2012-09-25 05:06:46

pablokal
Administrator
From: Nijmegen, Holland
Registered: 2010-10-12
Posts: 2,954
Website

Re: Systemd, some reading about what, how and why with some critical views

Allan McRae  in a post on systemd from 9 september: http://allanmcrae.com/2012/09/replacing … rch-linux/

Some argumunts against systemd:

Instead of reducing complexity it hides complexity (the gnome way). Now stupid people can write deamons by writing .ini like .servce files. You don't really know what is going under the hood unless you want to read through tens of thounsands of Lines of C Code. Which is much more fun.

    There is no scriptability. All features you are supposed to use are build in. Extensibility is almost not possible due to the non-modularity of the c source code. All other kinds of features which you will never use are build in and can not be switched off. This is great becuase bloated software always adds to the feel of newness.

    It has journald. So all logs are now written to an undocumented binary format that can change any day and can only be read out with a special program which is of course much better than just cat'ing it.

    It updates the old crappy UNIX philosophy of "everything is a file" to the great new Windows philosophy of "everything is an API". Now you need Programs to make simple configuration changes instead of editing files which is great because even more programs are always better.

http://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/ … ss/c5tkeij


Getting your questions answered here at ArchBang Forums
Please! Always give hardware info, if there is a chance that 's relevant: #lspci -vnn
On Arch(bang) and Openbox: http://stillstup.blogspot.com/

Offline

#23 2012-09-25 11:48:32

scjet
Moderator
From: Windsor, Canada
Registered: 2010-12-01
Posts: 1,167

Re: Systemd, some reading about what, how and why with some critical views

I hear you @Pablo, and thanks for the article/links,  but as you know as well, reading to the end of Allan's barforama we also have this:
- "quote" from: http://allanmcrae.com/2012/09/replacing … rch-linux/

"...So if you are going to do a lot of work to avoid systemd, be prepared for the amount of work to increase in the future. But do not concern yourself too much… Arch Bang has plans to save all the systemd haters! And they have made an installer so their ability to handle actual packaging of something this complex is not to be questioned!..."

wtf ?

I can't tell if he's being funny, or serious half-the-time. It can be "stifling" to say the least. ?!
To me, Allan being a C-Programmer/Linux/Arch Dev Programmer, they can read thru' C-code, the way I read text-files. Plus, I'm sorry, but most of them are like cops and lawyers -they just stick together, no matter what, 'cause they know what's best for lowly Users'.-such as I  -Lol
It would be nice to simply have "both", hence I'm just "pro-choice" here.

I'm all for trying to "fork"-around for awhile, but I have no idea how long we can resist Reddows, aka WinHat, aka ArchHat, aka RedArch ... ?
Again, to me I'm ok with systemd, and I'm ok with a non-systemd,

Arch/ArchBang is the "2nd" most used Distro that I have stuck it out with this far.
I still like it, and I hope AB sticks around for a long time, as I'm sure many, many others, yourself included do too.

I'm gonna go on a predilection here:
I'll bet $20, that Linux worldwide will finally overtake Windoze,  (Win8/9 will be their final disaster(s)), and M$/Windows will slowly "implode", between 2015 <-> 2017. -Because all their previous "hardware" alliances will crumble and turn against them.
Europe/China/Asia/... will be first to embrace Linux completely, with N.America "freely" giving in near the end.
However, this will come at some "extreme" concessions for ALL Linux Users, the 1st of these we are now witnessing as "systemd"., but of course, that is not to say, that something else will replace "systemd", as well ?

Nonetheless, what I'm afraid of, is how much freedom/choice/portability/... are we gonna have to give up, before this happens. ?! <- 'cause it will.

Excuse my "musings".

Cheers, my friend.

Last edited by scjet (2012-09-25 12:15:06)


The "BSD" things in life are "Free", and "Open", and so is ArchBang!

Offline

#24 2012-09-25 12:24:17

oliver
Administrator
Registered: 2010-11-04
Posts: 1,771

Re: Systemd, some reading about what, how and why with some critical views

It has journald. So all logs are now written to an undocumented binary format that can change any day and can only be read out with a special program which is of course much better than just cat'ing it.

It *can* be better than just cat'ing it but it does bother me that if I have a problem with journalctl I can't view logs so I'm kind of torn here.  I do like the idea of using some flags for journalctl to only see messages about apache since the box last booted instead of having to build a command with greps and pipes.  If it wrote to a raw ASCII file *and* it's own format I would be all-in.


:wq!

Offline

#25 2012-09-25 12:29:38

Mr Green
Iso Developer
Registered: 2010-11-07
Posts: 4,776

Re: Systemd, some reading about what, how and why with some critical views


Follow me on twitter @mrgreen_linux

Online

#26 2012-09-25 12:54:02

scjet
Moderator
From: Windsor, Canada
Registered: 2010-12-01
Posts: 1,167

Re: Systemd, some reading about what, how and why with some critical views

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=n … px=MTE4MDY

also, "systemd" can render your machine "un-bootable" !  -and that's not so good is it. ?
Anyway, we are all just guinea-pigs for "systemd" right now, but hopefully it will be ready to encompass ALL things "init", sometime in the near future, but of course, that will solely depend on Lennart-Linux. Pleeez sir, may I have another binary-blob ?
sry,
wink

Last edited by scjet (2012-09-25 12:58:20)


The "BSD" things in life are "Free", and "Open", and so is ArchBang!

Offline

#27 2012-09-25 12:56:32

scjet
Moderator
From: Windsor, Canada
Registered: 2010-12-01
Posts: 1,167

Re: Systemd, some reading about what, how and why with some critical views

oliver wrote:

It has journald. So all logs are now written to an undocumented binary format that can change any day and can only be read out with a special program which is of course much better than just cat'ing it.

It *can* be better than just cat'ing it but it does bother me that if I have a problem with journalctl I can't view logs so I'm kind of torn here.  I do like the idea of using some flags for journalctl to only see messages about apache since the box last booted instead of having to build a command with greps and pipes.  If it wrote to a raw ASCII file *and* it's own format I would be all-in.

Briefly, the Logs" are done that way in systemd for security reasons, as far as I suspect.

Last edited by scjet (2012-09-25 12:56:54)


The "BSD" things in life are "Free", and "Open", and so is ArchBang!

Offline

#28 2012-09-25 12:59:37

oliver
Administrator
Registered: 2010-11-04
Posts: 1,771

Re: Systemd, some reading about what, how and why with some critical views

Mr Green wrote:

:-)  Yes - thank you.  I really should read documentation more.

I feel like I'm walking out of some Arch closet here, but I like systemd.


:wq!

Offline

#29 2012-09-25 13:03:47

scjet
Moderator
From: Windsor, Canada
Registered: 2010-12-01
Posts: 1,167

Re: Systemd, some reading about what, how and why with some critical views

I'm ok with systemd too, but I just wish it was NOT so anti-shell ?


The "BSD" things in life are "Free", and "Open", and so is ArchBang!

Offline

#30 2012-09-25 13:28:28

pablokal
Administrator
From: Nijmegen, Holland
Registered: 2010-10-12
Posts: 2,954
Website

Re: Systemd, some reading about what, how and why with some critical views

I find the way Allan is showing off his feelings of superiority in his remark relating to AB very telling. I mean you don't need psychological insight to deduce from that what kind of guy he is. He doesn't seem to understand how his mockery is exposing himself.


Getting your questions answered here at ArchBang Forums
Please! Always give hardware info, if there is a chance that 's relevant: #lspci -vnn
On Arch(bang) and Openbox: http://stillstup.blogspot.com/

Offline

#31 2012-09-26 02:08:27

ArchVortex
Retired AB Overlord
From: Batu, Jawa Timur, Indonesia
Registered: 2011-04-01
Posts: 1,453

Re: Systemd, some reading about what, how and why with some critical views

Interesting how Allan says "Arch Bang has plans to save all the systemd haters! And they have made an installer so their ability to handle actual packaging of something this complex is not to be questioned!" See http://allanmcrae.com/2012/09/replacing … rch-linux/

I don't recall that we were going to save systemd haters but rather that we were going to offer a choice to ArchBang/Arch users. Arch Devs can say whatever they want about me or ArchBang. Non-conformists who don't follow the other lemmings (lennings) will always be ostracised and I don't really care. I'm not going to get into a war of words or fire sarcastic volleys back and forth. It's not going to accomplish anything positive for anybody. We will continue along our merry way trying to offer ArchBang/Arch users a choice, whether it's systemd, sysvinit, OpenRC with mdev, Upstart, or whatever floats your boat. In my opinion, I believe time will tell and a few years from now when systemd has had time to work its "magic'", we'll see that many a major distro realise that they made a mistake by taking the systemd path. Hopefully, ArchBang will still be around providing users with a choice.


GUI's?? We don't need no stinkin' GUI's!!!
Gentoo / Slackware / FreeBSD / HaikuOS

Offline

#32 2012-09-26 04:11:35

ArchVortex
Retired AB Overlord
From: Batu, Jawa Timur, Indonesia
Registered: 2011-04-01
Posts: 1,453

Re: Systemd, some reading about what, how and why with some critical views

scjet wrote:

I'm all for trying to "fork"-around for awhile, but I have no idea how long we can resist Reddows, aka WinHat, aka ArchHat, aka RedArch ... ?

It's "AssHat" wink


GUI's?? We don't need no stinkin' GUI's!!!
Gentoo / Slackware / FreeBSD / HaikuOS

Offline

#33 2012-09-27 00:26:59

scjet
Moderator
From: Windsor, Canada
Registered: 2010-12-01
Posts: 1,167

Re: Systemd, some reading about what, how and why with some critical views

Yes indeed, time will tell how "systemd" matures, .... I also hope it doesn't end up like the complete mess that "pulseaudio" has ended up.  sad -which was yet another reason why I left buntu a long time ago.

Last edited by scjet (2012-09-27 00:27:20)


The "BSD" things in life are "Free", and "Open", and so is ArchBang!

Offline

#34 2012-10-01 10:32:32

BadBuddy666
Member
Registered: 2012-10-01
Posts: 2

Re: Systemd, some reading about what, how and why with some critical views

Hi all,

  Please give a look at systemd-193 source:

NEWS file: read changes about version 193.
README file: Requirements: dbus + cgroup (+ other recomended),  Consultants:  www.profusion.mobi

man/daemon.7  in NOTES:  ref.2  Apple MacOSx daemon requirements
man/machine-id.5  in RELATION TO OSF UUIDS: why mention microsoft ?
man/os-release.5  in CPE_NAME=  (and in NOTES)  ref. to  MITRE Corporation why ?

(lol) man/bootup.7  in DESCRIPTION refers to boot(7) (can't find it), and the diagram is really nice with 20 columns terminal !!

Why ??? I mean all Linux systems works well, and if you want you can have a light and simple to admin Linux distro (see CRUX), why do that ??
See how many files they made; and for what ???  Is the beginning of a new (locked-in??) OS ???

*Nix free or die.

Offline

#35 2012-10-02 05:41:56

ratcheer
Member
Registered: 2011-10-08
Posts: 113

Re: Systemd, some reading about what, how and why with some critical views

@BadBuddy666, we are on the same page. A few people see what is going on. With this intricate depth of automation comes the loss of control of the user, which is a loss of software freedom. Our OS will not just be locked in to the automation, but also locked down from us doing anything about it.

Tim

Offline

#36 2012-10-02 10:31:43

BadBuddy666
Member
Registered: 2012-10-01
Posts: 2

Re: Systemd, some reading about what, how and why with some critical views

Thanks @Ratcheer. I found interesting informations to share:

1- A critic review (a bit old...): 
    http://monolight.cc/2011/05/the-systemd-fallacy/

2- The following posts on Fedora forum:
     http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=276520
     http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=260642
     http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=283363

3- A systemd search in Fedora forum:
    http://forums.fedoraforum.org/tags.php?tag=systemd

Quote from first post (first link of point 2):
    " So it took 34 seconds to boot, despite all 34 services taking about 109 seconds "

My custom trimmed BSD-style init, with super huge kernel (ie: make allyesconfig), on my overfilled machine (2 video cards, 4 CRT, no free PCI slots, and only one free usb port on 8), boots in 15 sec !!!

And also, reading 'systemd for administrators' why advoid sh scripts?
Are slow? (not so much, I think, but depends). Are so bad that no one is able to understand them? (If so I'm a genius cause I learned basic bash scripting in one year (not 8hours a day, sorry but I need to work for food)).
And last 'parallelizing the boot process'. (does it work on my old Pentium2?).

My poor opinion is that any developer can make the software they like, but not force all distros to use it. (search for 'gnome  systemd' in your preferred engine, for more).

Thanks for reading my rants.

Good luck at all ArchBangers !

Offline

#37 2012-10-06 23:26:23

dodo3773
Member
Registered: 2011-11-17
Posts: 18

Re: Systemd, some reading about what, how and why with some critical views

ArchVortex wrote:

We will continue along our merry way trying to offer ArchBang/Arch users a choice, whether it's systemd, sysvinit, OpenRC with mdev, Upstart, or whatever floats your boat. [snip] Hopefully, ArchBang will still be around providing users with a choice.

Really? Are you guys working on this now? This is the most awesome news I have heard in a while if you think you can accomplish this. If this distro can give users whatever init system they want or feel comfortable with and there was enough init scripts to go around (for daemons and whatnot) that would make this probably the most flexible binary distro I can think of. It would be enough for me to move from vanilla arch for sure. I will definitely wait and see how this plays out.

Offline

#38 2012-10-17 02:44:06

mastis
Member
From: Finland
Registered: 2011-10-02
Posts: 131

Re: Systemd, some reading about what, how and why with some critical views

I'm currently so confused about this systemd-fanboys vs haters war. I can't decide my side. It looks good and I almost wanna try it. I heard rumor that it's a spyware. This isn't correct? Can anybody confirm this?

Offline

#39 2012-10-17 03:31:52

pablokal
Administrator
From: Nijmegen, Holland
Registered: 2010-10-12
Posts: 2,954
Website

Re: Systemd, some reading about what, how and why with some critical views

Spyware seems  a bit paranoia to me; read the arguments provided in this thread and its links and if you can't make up your mind then, well you can't make up your mind; nothing worrying about that.


Getting your questions answered here at ArchBang Forums
Please! Always give hardware info, if there is a chance that 's relevant: #lspci -vnn
On Arch(bang) and Openbox: http://stillstup.blogspot.com/

Offline

#40 2012-10-17 08:25:04

ArchVortex
Retired AB Overlord
From: Batu, Jawa Timur, Indonesia
Registered: 2011-04-01
Posts: 1,453

Re: Systemd, some reading about what, how and why with some critical views

I don't know about spyware but have a look at who created systemd and is actually in control of it. RedHat. I don't want to spread FUD but RedHat is the big money making distro in Linux and hypothetically, if they decided that systemd was no longer going to work with any other distro but RedHat, then there would be a lot of screwed distros and Linux users who would have to either pay to use systemd or go elsewhere (Slackware, Gentoo or heaven forbid, Windows or Mac).


GUI's?? We don't need no stinkin' GUI's!!!
Gentoo / Slackware / FreeBSD / HaikuOS

Offline

#41 2012-10-17 08:46:37

oliver
Administrator
Registered: 2010-11-04
Posts: 1,771

Re: Systemd, some reading about what, how and why with some critical views

ArchVortex wrote:

RedHatis the big money making distro in Linux and hypothetically, if they decided that systemd was no longer going to work with any other distro but RedHat, then there would be a lot of screwed distros and Linux users who would have to either pay to use systemd or go elsewhere (Slackware, Gentoo or heaven forbid, Windows or Mac).

Isn't systemd published under the LGPL?


:wq!

Offline

#42 2012-10-17 08:55:32

Mr Green
Iso Developer
Registered: 2010-11-07
Posts: 4,776

Re: Systemd, some reading about what, how and why with some critical views


Follow me on twitter @mrgreen_linux

Online

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB