Slashdot Mirror
You Got Your Windows In My Linux
snydeq writes: Ultimately, the schism over systemd could lead to a separation of desktop and server distros, or Linux server admins moving to FreeBSD, writes Deep End's Paul Venezia. "Although there are those who think the systemd debate has been decided in favor of systemd, the exceedingly loud protests on message boards, forums, and the posts I wrote over the past two weeks would indicate otherwise. I've seen many declarations of victory for systemd, now that Red Hat has forced it into the enterprise with the release of RHEL 7. I don't think it's that easy. ... Go ahead, kids, spackle over all of that unsightly runlevel stuff. Paint over init and cron, pam and login. Put all of that into PID1 along with dbus. Make it all pretty and whisper sweet nothings about how it's all taken care of and you won't have to read a manual or learn any silly command-line stuff. Tune your distribution for desktop workloads. Go reinvent Windows."
What's wrong with services.msc on a Windows Server machine? Any serious answers from people who actually used it?
This space for rent.
Some of us stopped using Red Hat when the NetworkManager mess came out with RHEL 6.
Why would we expect RHEL 7 to be any better?
You RedHat fans have fun with your "RedHat Vista" release. :P
Oh day of days! Now it needs to statically link in gconf and we'll all have a registry too!
Is anyone really concerned about this? Let me put on my prophetic wizard hat and predict how this is going to go from here:
I'm really not trying to be flip but this is just the FOSS process at work here. It's messy sometimes but so is anything that involves people. Embrace the ecosystem that makes this whole argument possible! If Apple or Microsoft decided they want some polorizing system like Systemd to be the new hotness in their OS offerings there's literally fuck all we could do about it. At least with the FOSS environment we have the freedom to make our own decisions
My experiences with systemd have been good and I can see how it can eliminate some of the kludges I've relied on in the past. Rather than have an /etc/init.d/myservice restart all related services to ensure a "clean" environment, I can list dependencies and triggers and rely on the system to do what is appropriate.
It doesn't eliminate the ability to create or use System V init scripts, it just provides administrators with an alternative. Given the distribution creators have put a lot of effort into converting their scripts we have a lot of examples to work from. I've been working with UNIX since the 80's and rather than adopt a "get off my lawn" mentality I'm looking forward to embracing solutions to modern problems and see this as a positive step forward.
Except we don't see systemd solving any problems. It is a solution searching for a problem.
I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
My main problem is that the old init system was dead simple to administer. You only needed to know basic shell scripting as well as grep and you could figure out most things you ever encountered. Systemd again is a horribly complicated program that probably no one except the developers understand inside out.
It seems to me like this whole systemd/upstart etc. nonsense started when someone wanted to make machines boot up faster. The problem is that in today's world how fast a machine boots is completely irrelevant. On VM's you can clone a running machine, so how the OS starts is unimportant. A classic server is always on and rarely gets booted. Laptops, which seemed like the obvious target, are typically just suspended to disk, so they rarely run through the whole boot process. Desktops are typically sleeping too when not in use.
In other words, I still haven't figured out why anyone would need systemd. I've never had a reason to need it. I've only had reasons to hate it when something that used to be very simple is now hidden behind some complicated shell commands.
"Although there are those who think the systems debate has been decided in favour of systems, the exceedingly loud protests on message boards, forums, and the posts I wrote over the past two weeks would indicate otherwise.
"Although there are those who think bacon is tasty, a loud protests I've posted recently on message boards, forums, and here on /. over the past two weeks would indicate otherwise."
(Yeah, I've been here long enough to know that nobody at /. does any actual editing. Still, can I make fun of the submitter for making it sound like (s)he's the one who is going around and posting all the loud protests, and then trying to make it seem like some sort of movement?)
Yaz
What I don't understand is why systemd advocates continue to not understand the perspective of those against it. Critics tend to recognize what systemd brings to the table and debate from that point. Advocates just call those people idiots, curmudgeons, and so on rather than understanding the perspective of the opposing viewpoint. It's quite maddening.
Init runs as PID 1. Systemd runs as PID 1.
Most init systems have a negligible amount of code running as pid 1, meaning init itself is unlikely to ever cause a blip at runtime. The complaint is what the implication for the complexity and volume of code in systemd approach. A better counter argument would be that the kernel itself has even more complex needs and runs in an equally critical context. That's a bit more defensible, though adding more complexity under that excuse is still a weak one.
Claiming that "lots of people don't like systemd equates to anything other than lots of people don't understand systemd, but will complain anyway is just stupid
No, lot's of people who know well enough how systemd works and still don't like it for valid reasons. No one claims it is not capable of things that classic init could not really do, but the question is the relative value of those features and what is given up in the pursuit of those capabilities. systemd is more monolithic in design, involves more compiled code beyond the reach of the typical shell capabilities of a sysadmin, and is more complex in its underpinnings in general. If your boot went off the rails in a classic init system, you can work through it using shell debug because it is comprised of a tiny bit of c code that hasn't changed in an eternity jumping into a sea of plain old shell scripts.. You can chroot and play around a non-booting image if needed. If systemd goes off the rails, it requires a much more complicated debug effort. You pretty much have to start up a container rather than just chroot (admittedly systemd provides a facility to mitigate the complexity of that task, but it is more complex than just chroot). It has a high likelihood of landing in some code a sysadmin is helpless in the face of compared to the same task in classic init scripts. A local mistake can escalate to systemd debug assistance more quickly. This is very much like Windows (which has it's qualities as well) where if things go off the rails very far, it's nearly a lost cause to sort out what happened and how to come back from it unless you have Microsoft developers ready to answer the call to debug it (and they almost never are).
Some people don't like them new fangled fuel injectors and still think a carburetor is the way to go as well.
And there are tons of carburetor platforms in the wild for brand new products. Try finding a leaf blower with fuel injection. The cost and complexity of a fuel injection system is too high in many applications. If cost and complexity were equal, then *everything* would be fuel injected, but cost and complexity are not equal. This is actually a very good analogy for systemd, capable of inarguably fancier tricks but the universe of mechanics who can repair it when broken versus throwing the whole thing out is much different. The relative merit though is more questionable (everyone benefits from lower fuel consumption and reduced uncombusted gasoline in the atmosphere, not everyone really benefits meaningfully from the advances in systemd).
What systemd advocates fail to recognize is that not everyone should have to be an application developer to administer systems. They assume minor configuration mistakes are all sysadmins have to contend with and thus they don't understand why a sysadmin might need to follow the flow of the init system in more detail and yet not have the ability to easily cope with systemd code. The 'DevOps' buzzword may embolden assumptions in some circles, but it does not mean that good sys admins have magically changed, just th
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Well it does solve some problems, just not problems many server administrators largely cared about while creating problems some systems administrators really do care about.
-Services cannot reparent themselves out of the launching context, meaning init system *always* knows how many processes it is and resources it consumes. It's nice and structured, too bad that ps axf and grep largely serve the same purpose when things went south, but the systemd approach is certainly more structured. Of course it means that you can't try out a systemd controlled service start in a chroot, since it can't take pid 1 and how could we have *possibly* ever lived starting services as anything but pid 1.
-Bake in more advanced log processing to mitigate the need for log analysis tools. The problem of course being that those log analysis tools tend to work well enough while leaving the plain text behind in a manner that can be trivially opened and perused in Windows or whatever.
-Starting up /bin/sh hundreds of times during boot is wasteful and slows boot. Systemd mitigates that by enabling more lightweight service start. However you'd have to care something about boot times, which is rarely even in the mobile category (android phones take forever to boot, but people don't seem to mind since they almost never reboot them), and not mind that more opaque binary code is handling stuff that a common sysadmin cannot trace.
-Sequential startup of services is silly when many can be started in parallel. Of course now you have to debug a less deterministic boot process to enable such a thing, with the same inscrutable code paths for the sake of a faster boot very few people needed.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
I would be interested in the anyone's response to Lennart Poetterings rebuttal to the common complaints about systemd.
I'm too n00b to know who's right.
Wow, something so awful even some Gnome 3 users can't take it.
brandelf -t FreeBSD
There was no general resolution selecting systemd, you smug liar. Someone reported the fact that systemd was not default as a bug and the eight man technical committee (tech-ctte) decided for systemd in a tie broken split decision. An end run was done around the rest of the debian devs. Anyone who opposes systemd is labeled a troll and banned from the mailing lists now.
I must fess up. I've used Unix since 1978. I cut my teeth on System V and I just fell in love with it's init.d system, where I could control an entire 80 port modem bank enable/disable with a simple change of the init state. telinit 5 - multiuser, telinit 6 - multiuser and modem banks. Heck you could even put that in a cron job. The init system of SYSV was simple, easy, powerful and logical. It is the UNIX WAY.
Fast forward to this labor day weekend, and I had to go into work for a 'Webserver Down' call. Sure enough a hardware failure, so I rebuilt a new system using the *Latest and Greatest* linux distro that was systemD. I needed Apache to fire up with an init.d script, when run-level 5 was hit. Oh wait, how do you do that? Well this is clearly explained so clearly and idiot could do it. It's in /etc/systemd in systemd.conf? Nope! Is it in /etc/systemd/system? Nope! Which one is it? I find a softline from system.default to /lib/systemd/system/runlevel5.target. I 'cat' and it says:
---
[Unit]
Description=Graphical Interface
Documentation=man:systemd.special(7)
Requires=multi-user.target
After=multi-user.target
Conflicts=rescue.target
Wants=display-manager.service
AllowIsolate=yes
---- /etc/rc initialization method. At least it's readable and understandable. All I want is add is Apache_special_ctl start in the initialization to multiuser mode. Were are the readable BASH scripts at? I'll try to emulate IRQBalance, When I drill down soft-link after soft-link I finally find this;
In other words this is a damn maze of BS! Some windows wanker wrote this puzzle to destroy Linux I'm convinced. I'm tempted to switch to BSD just to enjoy the
-----
[Unit]
Description=irqbalance daemon
After=syslog.target
[Service]
EnvironmentFile=/etc/sysconfig/irqbalance
ExecStart=/usr/sbin/irqbalance --foreground $IRQBALANCE_ARGS
[Install]
WantedBy=multi-user.target
----
Hang on, where did the variable $IRQBALANCE_ARGS come from? Grep? nope, more grep? nope! More google searches? Nope.
This is BS. I don't care if you can do a parallel start up (fundamentally you can't anyway, but in init you could use '&' idiots). The complexity added to the system start up and the 'telinit' process is inexcusable and is the worst computer science or computer engineering I have ever seen! It should be tossed into a dumpster! Seriously! Even young programmers will never figure systemd out. It's an undocumented programming maze of gotcha's.
Needless to say my efforts failed and I tossed the machine across the room for the fun of it.
Systemd developers deserves the finger for such an programmer unfriendly pile of trash that replaced elegance and simplicity.
You do have to put a fraction of the time you did in 30+ years of learning your way around SYSV systems into actually learning systemd in order to expect the same level of proficiency.
This is BS. "Learning" SYSV configuration takes 15 minutes to explain run levels and that everything is scripts and (usually) symlinks. You could even learn what you need by recursively grepping /etc for a process name and the script it's in is readable to anyone with programming experience. GP pointed out that a config file for systemd is sitting in /lib. WTF?