Slashdot Mirror
Ubuntu To Switch To systemd
GuerillaRadio writes "Following the decision for Debian to switch to the systemd init system, Ubuntu founder and SABDFL Mark Shuttleworth has posted a blog entry indicating that Ubuntu will now follow in this decision. 'Nevertheless, the decision is for systemd, and given that Ubuntu is quite centrally a member of the Debian family, that's a decision we support. I will ask members of the Ubuntu community to help to implement this decision efficiently, bringing systemd into both Debian and Ubuntu safely and expeditiously.'"
Lets face it, sysV init is complicated. Well, the theory behind the old linear start from init script 00 and move to init script 99 isn't, but the modern implementations and the scripts themselves are complicated. I mean you're doing dependency checking and a whole bunch of other things in bash scripts. Compare that to a systemd service file, which is overall nice and readable. So, part of it is factoring out the logic from the variables. The other big thing is bash and the tools used by init scripts are like using a sledgehammer to tap in a finishing nail.
I'm not going to say that systemd is perfect. I like the "unix" way which is to use small units that do one thing well instead of anything. That's part of the reason I see bash init scripts as too much for the job. Unfortunately, the systemd authors look like they want to throw in everything but the kitchen sink. Well, everything that they can't just port to kernel space that is. But that's the thing, Linux is a Monolithic kernel. Like it or not, the "Linux" way is to have one uber optimized thing with modules to handle everything.
In the end, I just really like the ease of use of service files. Oh, and the stupidly fast boot time on my laptop is really nice. People who say boot times don't matter aren't living in the real world.
So lets pretend that we've just completed writing this code, as opposed to having just completed sabotaging it -Altera
"I know nothing about this software but I'm gonna bitch, complain and sling shit at it anyway. How dare they move my cheese!"
- Typical Slashtard
Knowledge of the new software is a separate (easier to cheaply ridicule, stay classy) question. The issue with systemd: it reeks of a solution looking for a problem.
If the existing init systems were causing widespread grief I'd be much more receptive to it. So would just about anyone currently questioning systemd's rapid adoption. Right now the reason for installing it is "everyone else is adopting it as the new standard and it will be increasingly difficult to go against that standard." That's not the best of selling points. It's not like "wow all these problems and limitations I had been experiencing will finally go away!" like you get with truly sensible and evolutionary changes.
If you think that shouldn't matter to anyone, you could explain why you think so. In the meantime, please make an effort to understand the viewpoint of those who disagree with you. Then you stand a real chance of actually addressing the issue, or at least of not embarassing yourself with smug hand-waving and knee-jerk dismissals based on your annoyance that everyone doesn't already agree with you.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Your comment made me switch back to Ubuntu. Seems like all the tinfoil-whiners are gone from there now.
If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
Well, the BIG problem is maintenance. SysV scripts have both a S and K variant on when to run when switching levels, and you can bet very few people have it properly set up if you do switch levels. Enough so that switching levels is fraught with danger - you can probably start at level 1 (single user), and switch to 3, 4, or 5. Maybe you can get back to 1 because the extra demons get killed. Maybe.
In the end, it's bit of a maintenance hassle, and while completely understandable, it's a nightmare.
In fact, I'm guessing most utilities don't even bother handling the case - you just reboot and forget about it.
After all, computers are good at doing stuff automatically - so stuff like maintaining which services should run at which runlevels should be automated - the init can figure out what it needs to start, what it needs to kill and the order based on dependencies. All the user needs to do is select what needs to run at what runlevel, and the tool does the rest.
Then there are the various hacks to SysV - PID files (if so many tools need to know the daemon PID, why not have init actually do that work than requiring every script to do it manually?), the fact that state tracking isn't really in the system, and if you need services to relaunch on failure within limits, there ought to be a way to do it without requiring a trip to /etc/inittab to specify that fact.
Yes if you think systemd is bad, either rip it out on your machine or roll your own distro. Or move to FreeBSD. It's available now, and it runs great. So no need to whine. Just move to an operating system that fits your personal parameters. More likely you'll stick with your current distro and whine and moan about something that you don't well understand.
On the desktop side of things, I've been watching Linux struggle for years to do simple things like deal with removable media and USB devices. For a while there was hal, then udev, and now systemd. And finally things are actually working, and working rather well. Mostly thanks to udev, but systemd now builds on that. I know many people don't mind manually mounting devices and loading modules to make usb devices work (I don't mind, really). But it's nice to have things automatically work.
And really systemd on the service isn't that bad an idea either. Fine-grained logging is very useful and conventional syslog is still available and will always be there. Process supervision is something that's been needed for a long while now.
Yes, and you have to understand that that only works because your DE of choice has bent over backwards to make sure all it's dependencies are running and functional when you try to start it. That is to say, startx has to duplicate functionality of init because init is too stupid or too unreliable to be able to do it for your DE.
This issue can be generalized to any significantly complex application. That means you already have a half dozen "init systems" working on your systems. They're all independent (even though they maybe should know about each other), and you can't manage them universally (even though you might want to fire things off with system level events, like restarting a service if it crashes), and you certainly can't be sure you're not stepping on each others' toes.
Essentially: a large enough number of people noticed that the same features for starting and managing processes were getting implemented over, and over, and over. They realized that these functions belong in the init role -- because only init has the authority and knowledge required to not screw it up -- but that sysv-init didn't have the capability to do any of that.
All this began to happen perhaps 10 years ago, when other operating systems (e.g., Windows, which has had service dependencies and crash recovery since Windows 2000) showed what a more feature-complete init system was capable of.
At this point these "why do we even need a new init system?" questions are like someone watching I-40 getting repaved in the 1970s and asking "why do we even need Interstates?"
The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
The distros are going with it presumably because they think they need it to turn Linux into a desktop or notebook OS. However, they seem to be ignoring the issues it presents for servers. Let's take my *THREE HOUR* debugging session on systemd yesterday. I had a netboot system up and running. Client boots from Server and mounts root filesystem from Server. I changed from Server A to Server B. Due to an NFSv4 vs. NFSv3 issue, Client could no longer mount the root filesystem read/write. Simple, right? It would've been with SysV init because the errors during the mount would've been spewed to the console and I would've seen them. What *actually* happened is that a bunch of services failed to start. Instead of spewing the error message, systemd "helpfully" told me to run "systemctl status" on the service to see the error message. Except that I never got to a login prompt due to the errors. And I couldn't mount the filesystem read/write so it lost the logs.
Two+ hours later, I managed to disable enough stuff to get to a login prompt where I was finally able to figure out what was going on (never did get systemctl to show me the logs, probably because they couldn't be written to disk and it doesn't seem to hold them in RAM).
Please explain to me what the advantage of systemd is again? Because I'm *REALLY* not seeing it. It took something that was trivial to figure out and made it astronomically difficult. I no longer have any idea what order my services start in or whether that order is repeatable. Yes, SysV init scripts were really long. But once you learned them, you realized that you only had to modify 5 or 6 lines of them to get a new service going. I have yet to figure out how to even create a service with systemd or how I figure out what I'm depending on.
In short, for a server, I have yet to see a single advantage of systemd over SysV init. Maybe I'm missing something and someone will enlighten me, but I'm extremely skeptical.
Am I just resistant to learning new things? Maybe, but learning stuff takes time and my time is money for my employer. So if I'm not getting a return on my investment of time (in new capabilities or reduced debugging time or *something*), why would I invest the time to become an expert on systemd?
Go Badgers! -- #include "std/disclaimer.h"