Slashdot Mirror
Longtime Debian Developer Tollef Fog Heen Resigns From Systemd Maintainer Team
An anonymous reader writes Debian developer Tollef Fog Heen submitted his resignation to the Debian Systemd package maintainers team mailing list today (Sun. Nov. 16th, 2014). In his brief post, he praises the team, but claims that he cannot continue to contribute due to the "load of continued attacks...becoming just too much." Presumably, he is referring to the heated and, at times, even vitriolic criticism of Debian's adoption of Systemd as the default init system for its upcoming Jessie release from commenters inside and outside of the Debian community. Currently, it is not known if Tollef will cease contributing to Debian altogether. A message from his twitter feed indicates that he may blog about his departure in the near future.
I am not resigning from Debian, just from the systemd maintainer team.
Trolling is not disagreement.
If the Debian team never shove that unneeded thing down the throats to the users none of the heated exchange would have happened in the first place
And to call others "immature twats" you are showcasing yourself to the world how "mature" you really are!
It's a pretty long story. If you want to read all of it, you probably need to read the entire debian-devel and debian-ctte archives from approximately a year and a half ago until February/March this year.
A shorter summary is something like (from my memory, coloured by my views, etc, but I believe it's largely correct). User names are generally @debian.org, finger $user@db.debian.org for full names and such. It's a bit rambling and written in one go, but it's what you get this time:
- I upload systemd to Debian about a month after its initial release, get it into a ok-ish shape for wheezy, but not anywhere near suitable for being the default.
- Other distros start switching to systemd as default, various people in Debian start discussing if we should switch to systemd. Some people say yes, some no, some want to switch to upstart. Bickering and discussions in equal measure spread out across all media (IRC, blogs/planet, mailing lists, in-person discussions). Most of it reasonably civil.
- At some point, paultag files https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bi... (_massive_ bug report, you don't want to read it all) , asking the Debian technical committee to default on what the default should be.
- Lots of discussions happen, we use a bit of liw's and rra's Essay Debate System (https://wiki.debian.org/Debate, https://wiki.debian.org/Debate...) to structure the debate. It's Debian, it has to be A System.
- vorlon (Steve Langasek) sets up VMs using the various init systems for the Technical Committee members to play with. They do so and write up their findings and arguments. rra's writeup is at https://lists.debian.org/debia... and is possibly the best comparison I've ever read of init systems. Lots more discussions happen. I contribute a fair bit with my systemd maintainer hat on (though we're at this point a team maintaining systemd in Debian) and is very happy this happens while I'm holidaying in Spain so I don't have to deal with a day job at the same time.
- A lot of arguing internally to the CTTE whether to couple the question of what the default init system should be with whether it's ok for packages to require a given init system. bdale resolves the knot by calling for votes on a proposal very quickly after proposing a ballot. iwj sees this as backstabbing and is still very, very angry about this to this day.
The vote ends with systemd being the winner, after bdale's casting vote as the CTTE chair.
After this, there is an attempted General Resolution in March, which fails to get enough seconds, this is restarted by iwj on late October this year. The goal of this GR appears to be to forbid packages to depend on a specific init system.
These 'attacks' do not prevent people from working on what they want to. Stop equating heated debates online with getting mugged in the street.
Not so easy since it is in the process of becoming a dependency for most of the base system. Currently, for much of it, it is an optional one, but that is slowly changing. This is redhat's embrace and extend.
There is a difference between "attacks" and valid criticism. Calling everybody that criticizes systemd and its adoption into Debian a "troll" or an "attacker" is unfounded and represents an extreme form of trolling itself. One could get the rather strong impression that the systemd advocates do not want any dialog or have sufficient valid arguments to deal with the criticism voiced. Instead they revert to this form of primitive emotional manipulation.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Debian have many good sides. It also suffers from fractions; the problem isn't so much that people disagree about some time petty technical things, but that they abuse the Debian bug tracker and governmental system in order to feud their petty wars on usually innocent package maintainers. By filling "political" bugs together with a lot of whining and twisted representation of facts, and then run and complain to higher ups in the hierarchy, they can force the package maintainer into endless, repeated explanations why things are like they. You can basically force the package maintainers to always be in defensive position. Not fun at all.
In this case it is the "anti-systemd" faction that is abusing the system and the developers, but there have been several other, perhaps smaller cases before this.
The "anti-systemd" faction probably just think they are fighting with their backs against the wall, trying to claw out a place in Debian with any means necessary before it is "too late".
But if they keep on attacking Debian developers like they do now, I think their strategy will backfire. Before the bitter systemd debacles started, most Debian developers where probably quite keen to support non-systemd inits too. But this rather poisonous war just never seems to end, so some Debian developers are starting to think, that the only way forward is an outright banishment of official SysVinit support after Jessie is released.
An elite crowd trying to force on everyone else what they think is the right way? Thats one of the many reasons people are against systemd! One thing I don't understand is how in the hell it is considered ok to have this in Debian STABLE? Maybe, in Fedora or OpenSuse but Debian stable???!
If the Debian team never shove that unneeded thing down the throats to the users
Serious question here: how avoidable is systemd currently?
It seems the number of holdouts among the distributions is shrinking ever more quickly.
systemd seems to be incorporating ever more functionality in itself. That in itself should be a problem, but it seems that the equivalent functionality outside of systemd is being lost at the same time.
Not sure what the status is with the other stuff systemd is preparing to replace.
Add to that the increasing hard dependencies, like with window managers that expect systemd to offload session management and login onto and I'm not sure how feasable holding out on systemd is anymore.
Sure, if a sufficiently large group of developers were bothered enough with the presence of systemd they could set out to provide the functionality the traditonal way and form a whole bunch of projects, including some sort of desktop environment.
But it seems systemd managed to assimilate responsibilities more quickly than resistance could form and forking of projects to non-systemd dependent versions could occur.
Mail a bomb, presume the bombing will succeed without error, don't monitor if the bomb actually had gone off and don't send another bomb if the first bomb fails. Any other deviation from this terrorism process is not the proper UNIX way!
Well, no, it's not deliberate. They are dependent on systemd because ConsoleKit is dead and rotting, and no other system provides the features they need. They would be happy to lose that dependency if there was an alternative.
But you're not helping, 0123456
0123456: What do you mean, I'm not helping?!
I mean: you're not helping! Why is that, 0123456?!
...
They're just questions, 0123456. In answer to your query, they're written down for me. It's a troll, designed to provoke an emotional response... Shall we continue?
I dont see an issue with systemd,
the issue isnt with systemd per se, the issue is systemd becoming a dependency of things that should not require it. for example, since systemd decided to eat udev, that means that every package that used udev now needs systemd. if you use any of the major desktops, it is a requirement. one the upside, it's fuelling the development of other desktops environments.
... let people who do not want systemd simply configure their system either so that systemd will start regular sys v init or bsd type scripts, or let them change /bin/init to point to the alternatifve init system of their choice.
there is a problem with that, it means systemd is running. there is an additional opposition to systemd itself, the most universally relevant reason being that systemd has a HUGE attack surface. the other reasons all feed into this one issue, it's a blaring and blindingly bright security issue.
btw, if you are GNOME2/MATE holdout trying to escape systemd like me, consider using LxQt. it's still a work in progress but it's usable as an everyday desktop environment.
LxQt repo (works with debian jessie):
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
That is the part that is the most troubling. It is this very anti-FOSS "systems or nothing" that bothers me.
If the Debian team refuses to give me a choice, I'll be moving to FreeBSD after twenty years administering Linux. It is that simple.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I honestly don't really care about this whole init debate, from a technical standpoint. I don't see a compelling reason to prefer systemd, and given the fact that it's changing a system that's worked fine (with a few tweaks) for more than 30 years, I'd just as soon stay with the old style.
But there's a few extremely troubling things I see from the systemd side:
- A complete disregard for precedent. Yes, it's good to be open to rethinking how we do things, but the fact is that Unix has worked for a very, very long time. There's many reasons for this, but the "Unix philosophy" is undoubtedly one of them. systemd is by no means "Unixy". Reading a directory of symlinks and executing shell scripts is simple, and minimizes the logic built into init - which a lot of people believe is a good guiding principle for pretty much the entire OS.
- An uncompelling value proposition. I don't much care about boot time (who reboots anymore, anyway?), and with Upstart my boot times were pretty quick anyway. If I'm running a server, I don't even care about boot time at all. What I do care about is simplicity of understanding and management. Systemd has failed to convince me that it does anything I want. Iin the absence of anything particularly valuable I'd just as soon stick with existing, robust, well-understood systems. I don't have my tonsils out for fun either - it's not change aversion to stick with things that worked fine in the absence of a compelling reason to change things.
- Poor architecture. The init system should be as simple as possible. Let it start things like dbus if the system needs it, don't build them in. Discrete components that are loosely-coupled, please - tight coupling is a black mark against virtually any multi-binary software package, but especially in the boot process. Building things into the startup process just reduces the number of things you're able to remove from a system that doesn't need them. DBus is a great example of this.
- Lack of concern for the server use case, and sysadmins in particular. People have raised concerns - many legitimate, some not - about systemd approaches, and the developers and (unusually rabid) community treat those concerns with indifference bordering on contempt. Here's a hint: when a group of competent professional acting in good faith doesn't understand why something is a good idea, it's your fault for having explained it poorly. Especially for an init system - the "average" user never did care about how his system booted! (Which, by the way, is something many systemd folk seem to disagree with - they say users are clamoring for it!) But the sysadmin does care, and has to manage it - best to treat him with respect, not contempt.
- Tying perfectly-good cross platform programs to Linux. systemd is, unabashedly, a virus. Why my window manager or graphics program has to depend on init, I don't know. But as long as it does and that package is systemd, it kills cross-platform compatibility. Compatibility is what got Linux off the ground, and with the exception of systemd it's not too hard to keep it going. Don't throw this away!
- Most importantly, the community is extremely toxic. What is Linux without community? Sure, there's bickering (since when is this bad, by the way?), but at the end of the day you have one of the most powerful and important pieces of software the world has ever seen. But the systemd mess feels like a Microsoft move, and the idea that there's a "Microsoft of Linux" able to move so unilaterally is extremely troubling. People voice concerns about systemd, and if they seem recycled it's because they haven't been well refuted! But the proponents are vicious, and vocal to an extent that makes one suspect astroturfing... which is even more troubling.
And the most troubling aspect of this toxic community are the attacks on opponents. The parent's comment is not the first, nor even the tenth, attack I've seen on a systemd opponent to claim that it's just someone afraid of losing their job and trying to set up some sort of
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
Just posted on my blog with a bit more background: http://err.no/personal/blog/te...
Whatever they wanna say, they are more than welcome to share with the world. It's a free country, and with free software, you get Double Free! They can choose another distro, or they can uninstall systemd (see instructions here: http://forums.debian.net/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=112364 ).
But using verbal violence against a developer is unacceptable, and immature. So I stand behind my prognosis.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain... time... to... die...
I think you have it backwards.
SystemD is forced down our throats by a small elite at Red Hat. This is, very obviously, a move right out of Microsoft's playbook.
Ah yes, the "la la la la la I can't hear you" tactic. Fact is, people against systemd have voiced technical omplaints, including one on this very page, which the maintainer who just resigned admitted is a severe bug, equivalent to "shooting your foot off" (his own words).
It's the people pushing systemd that are busy pretending that there aren't problems and refuse to acknowledge the issues, because they're inconvenient for them.
Good riddance. At least OpenBSD doesn't have this BS where they pretend a bug is a feature.
> what they think is the right way. That ties into what the mentality of this elite crowd is. For years this elite crowd has fought at every turn any attempt to make Linux easier to use for common, everyday users as a Windows alternative.
For decades, not just years. The Unix way predates the Windows philosophy by a rather significant margin. Those who appreciate the Unix philosophy have been protecting it from turning into something else for decades.
Imagine you joined the Ford F-250 design team. Would you insist that the F-250 should be redesigned as a Corvette alternative? Would you be surprised when the veteran members of the team pointed out that the F-250 is a work truck, not a sports car?
The Windows way works well for grandma to look at pictures of her grandkids. Mac may be even better for that use case. That's not suprising, as those systems were designed specifically to be "easier to use ... for the common everyday user." The Unix / Linux approach is designed for a different role or two; client/server first and portability also. Linux is designed to work in your router, your phone, and your web server. It's no surprise that Linux makes a better server than Windows, a much better phone, and works well on a router where Windows can't run at all. It was designed to have that flexibility.
If you want something that is just like a Windows desktop, your best bet is to get a Windows desktop. Linux isn't Windows, and of it tries to be like Windows it'll stop being Linux and being good at what Linux is good at.
It is monolithic. It has many components, but no alternatives to any of them.
It encrypts (writes binary) logs and offers only itself as a way to read them.
It encourages non-kernel systems to rely on it.
NSA?
How long can (Open)BSD and Slackware hold out against this perversity?
Are you paranoid if they really are out to get you?
--
It was a dark and drunken night. Four shots called out -- drink me.
And the criticism from those who are against systemd is extremely important to consider. The complaints are very sound, from a technological perspective. They're also based on decades of real world experience, which just cannot be ignored.
Systemd is inherently contrary to many of the core philosophies that underlie the Debian project, and that underlie UNIX and UNIX-like systems in general. Many of the criticisms of it just cannot be refuted. Bad ideas will be bad ideas, and systemd is objectively full of them.
In hindsight, it's obvious now that systemd should never have been integrated into Debian the way it has been. Debian should have indeed been forked, but with systemd going into this fork, rather than traditional Debian. Only after it had been proven as a suitable replacement should it have ever been considered for integration into mainline Debian.
Personally, I don't think the Debian project will survive. It may survive in name, but it will become weakened and irrelevant, like the XFree86 and GNOME projects have become. This truly is one of the most disturbing events to have hit such a major open source project. The worst part is that it's all so unnecessary. Debian didn't have to die as a project, and it especially did not have to die thanks to systemd of all things.
I've read all of the comments in this thread (at -1), and I think you're the only one to have truly nailed what's going on here.
Systemd has been a total disaster for many Debian users already. The animosity toward it doesn't come out of nowhere. It comes out of a situation like this, described as a "horrible experience". People are having their Debian systems utterly trashed thanks to systemd being forced upon them during routine updates.
I, too, fear that these early disastrous results will just be amplified many times over once Jessie starts to become more widely used. There will likely be problems, and they won't be pretty. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Debian's reputation is completely ruined. That's a real shame, given how many decades of effort have gone into making it such a respected and trusted distro.
This is also where FreeBSD could make a triumphant comeback. If the FreeBSD project play their cards right, and end up on the right side of this (which is obviously taking a strong stand against systemd, and standing in favor of stability and reliability), they could win over many refugees who are fleeing Debian.
Lets say you have a laptop that is on one network and goes to sleep when you close it and arrives in a hotel room on another network? How would you do this with init without some serious hacks?
You don't, you open your laptop in the hotel room and select the new network. Was that so hard? why in the hell do you think the init system should be involved? You do show what's wrong with the systemd design philosophy, that's for sure. I'm glad one of the crappers of needless complexity has resigned. One down and a few more to go, and maybe Debian will be a good distro again....
I wouldn't hold out Apple as example of leader to follow for stable init or daemon system; my work macbook pro is still screwy booting after yosemite upgrade. We won't even talk about the plist files for daemons for mac osx server, or how they sometimes get ignored
Actually using SYSVINIT already handled this quite well. Mainly because it was NETWORK MANAGER's job. Not Init's job, to handle network connectivity. I close my laptop, it sleeps, I open it, network manager fires up my wifi and connects. This argument is already invalid because it's already been solved by network-manager.
You realise the whole reason he is leaving the Debian systemd team is precisely because of attitudes you've just displayed in your post. Deciding to heave a _volunteer_ position is his right, and it's rather impressive that you can get so angry about it.
Still, I had a good laugh. An Anonymous Coward heatedly taunting someone else as a Coward. Hypocrisy is humorous.
For what it's worth, I managed to purge everything systemd-related from my debian testing system the other day. I had to replace NetworkManager with WICD, which is a pretty good straightforward replacement (although you need to re-create your configuration). Also, I run KDE, so that made things easier.
As I understand it (if I correctly noted the packages which got removed), you can't run a gnome system without systemd; however, you can still run debian jessie with kde without systemd.
The only packages which are coming from the systemd source package on my system any more are udev and libsystemd0 - however, given that systemd-sysv and systemd-logind are no longer installed, I consider that basically a win.
libsystemd0 is only still there because cups-daemon and kde-runtime require it; but given that it only defines the interfaces, it seems benign.
udev and libudev1, despite being packaged as part of the systemd source, do not depend on it according to the package info...
"Go to CNN [for a] spell-checked, fact-checked summary" -- CmdrTaco
All this makes me wonder why someone can't build some other piece of software which would perform the required session management in this particular case? It's not dependency for nefarious means, it's dependency which provides a specific feature that a programmer would like to use. Why can't that be coded separately from systemd by someone other than the systemd maintainers?
Systemd is also somewhat know for having no stable interfaces between its parts; combined with the increasing large number of parts it has, one would need to implement quite a lot to handle the required functionality. Systemd does have a chart of its API stability promises, but it looks to be last updated a year ago.
FWIW, I ran Debian Jessie with sysv for a while - and for about a month it was impossible to login via gdm (workaround was to switch to kdm or lightdm), so there's already been (testing-)user visible impact.
This is all very frustrating, especially since I really like the init/process-management parts of systemd, but not the glomp-up-all-the-projects and explicitly not working with others parts...
My problem with systemd is not the features. It's the way they are implemented.
I'm not sure that a slightly faster boot-up or easier package maintenance can ONLY come about by completing abandoning every vestige of a well-established init system. And I'm pretty sure that if we wanted to, someone could make the same features work with SysVInit too.
Feature-creep is the real problem. For the cost of slightly faster bootup, I lose an awful lot of old functionality that's been around forever, for no reasonable reason. There's no reason logs have to be binary, etc. in order to make that work.
And as has been discussed here before, most of systemd's nice features come about because of things like cgroups and other new functionality, not systemd itself. Make SysVInit cgroup-aware and things could be an awful lot nicer.
Standardising on a format for init files isn't worth completely abandoning all the previous init system and every Unix principle for. But the only people who care about that are the programmers and geeks, not the "so long as it just works" desktop users (of which Linux apparently has a surprising amount nowadays).
Fact is, people against systemd have voiced technical omplaints, including one on this very page, which the maintainer who just resigned admitted is a severe bug, equivalent to "shooting your foot off" (his own words).
You mean the bug in a not yet released version of the OS which will be fixed before release?
You guys are incredible. Last week I complained about everyone expecting software to be 100% perfect on it's first release, and now you are expecting 100% perfection in the betas?
Grow up!
Having a 1000 different components doing 1000 different thing in 1000 different ways managed by 1000 different developers does not make an argument invalid and doesn't make the problem solved. For the most part people thank their lucky stars when a linux system works at all (unless of course it is a server sitting in the corner humming away on one task).
You're absolutely right though. The task is not part of the init system. It should be offloaded to a central system management daemon. Something that monitors hardware and system events and acts accordingly. It should have a fancy name like systemd. Heck while we're at it they can manage locales, login sessions, and the bootup process too.
Oh what you thought systemd was just an init system? Maybe you should read the project page sometime.
" Let the forking commence." - i presume you've started the ball rolling with some code, how about pointing us to it?
Despite your attempt at superiority by expert-ism, perhaps non experts might have valuable input when the experts are behaving like children.
Under what circumstances do you think this is not going to be forked eventually?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Maybe you have mis-identified the "bullies?"
SystemD is to Red Hat what OOXML is to Microsoft. They can claim it's "open" but really it is a vendor lock-in scam.
SystemD is a decision made by a few some execs at a for-profit corporation. It is absolutely not something the community was asking for.
I am sick of this Microsoft-like "the decision has already been made, why are you arguing? SystemD is inevitable, just accept it. Because we say so. So FU take it and shut up."
I am sick of the astroturfing bullshit constantly insinuating that SystemD opponents are just "haters" and a tiny handful of "UNIX grey beards."
SystemD is nothing less than a hostile take over of Linux by Red Hat. The entire scam is right out of Microsoft's playbook.
- A complete disregard for precedent.
There are precedents to changing init systems on unixy systems: Mac has launchd, Solaris has SMF. Sysvinit itself was called an aberation when it was introduced, too, doing away with the much simpler BSD-style init.
I would consider systemd very unixy: It has lots of small tools, each designed to do something well. These work in concert to accomplish complex tasks. This whole "unix philosophy" thing is basically in the eye of the beholder.
- An uncompelling value proposition. I don't much care about boot time
Boot time is a side-effect.
Better hardening options for services is a value systemd brings to the table. Process management is another big one. Better logging, too. A more robust boot free of races is hard to argue with too (provided you have been bitten by such a race condition before:-). Finally socket activation greatly simplifies dependency management.
- Poor architecture.
Systemd uses DBus, an established, well understood and well tested protocol to communicate in favor of rolling its own. That can be considered a huge plus: Or have you never seen custom protocol parsers explode before, especially those written in C?
- Lack of concern for the server use case, and sysadmins in particular.
I wonder where you got that from. Systemd is particularly well suited for server systems: It makes for a more reliably boot process, it provides easy ways to harden services run, it can monitor running services, it collects way more log entries and enriches them with a lot of information directly from the kernel.
- Tying perfectly-good cross platform programs to Linux. Why my window manager or graphics program has to depend on init, I don't know.
Systemd is designed to make all the features of Linux available to admins. Those features are not available elsewhere, so of course systemd is neither. Blame that on the kernel developers, not on systemd.
Why does it your desktop environment depend on systemd? Because the developers of your desktop environment have decide that the services provided by systemd are valuable to them. Note that the desktop environment technically does not depend on systemd running as PID1, just on some of the daemons that are developed in the systemd repository. Those do in turn depend on systemd being PID1, but that is a different story:-)
If you do not know something, then maybe you should spend your time trying to understand the issue at hand before commenting in a public forum?
- Most importantly, the community is extremely toxic.
My experience with the systemd community was positive all the way. Any questions I had were answered in a friendly and helpful way. My patches were reviewed in a direct but friendly fashion and applied after all parties were happy with them. That is more that I can claim about many other projects I had contact with.
And I have seen several comments that have been well refuted but are brought up again and again. Well, I am happy with the answers to those comments, obviously the people making those comments are not.
And the most troubling aspect of this toxic community are the attacks on opponents.
There are rather a lot of opponents attacking proponents as well. That is no excuse for anybody to misbehave, but at this point *both* sides need to step back and take a deep of breath.
[...] No, there was outcry all those other times (in the PulseAudio case, quite rightly), but this is by far the most severe I've seen. And do any of these proponents think to ask - why? No, they decide it must just be change aversion and claim they're all just trying to set up a guild to keep their practices secret.
The outcry when the complex monster known as sysv init was introduced to replace the beautiful and simple B
Regards, Tobias
God. OK. While I agree with you in many things, there are a few things that you seem to have missed:
1. Debian (or general-purpose Linux generally) isn't simple anymore. These days are over and there's no way to get them back. Really. This is true for EVERYTHING in Debian/Linux and in every other OS. General-purpose systems tend to become more complex to be more easy on the outside. And there's no way around that.
2. The "community". I don't even know where to start. The "community" has turned into a mob that knows everything and gets nothing done. I'm sick of that. Strong opinions about things with no alternative implementations are worth exactly nothing.
3. Sit down and develop something better and defend it.
4. There is no step 4.
Meanwhile I really fear that several community-based projects will happily fail just because there are legions of people who know perfectly what they hate and have no precise idea what they want to have or even would sit down and DO IT. Do I like SystemD? No, it sucks, just like every other comparable system. Do you know what I hate even more? Not having ANYTHING to work with and to rely on it staying around.
Debian (and Wikipedia by the way too) is becoming a bit like a failed state: Factions that love fighting more than building something and kill each other while there's hardly anything left than smoking ruins around them. If there's someone doing something that you don't like and won't listen to you than either just sit down and do something better or shut the fuck up.
Debian is becoming a lesson in applied entropy.
I've been playing with it for about six months now. I'll probably begin the migration of our LAMP stacks and Samba file servers over to FreeBSD in the New Year. We're going to be building a new database server in the next few weeks, and initially it was going to be another Debian install, but at this point I'm thinking of altering the requirements to use FreeBSD. It's only mysql, so it's not like if it doesn't work all that well I can't push it quickly to a Linux server.
I simply do not like the direction Debian is going, and indeed many of the Linux distros. Systemd violates some of what I consider to be core Unix principles.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.