Slashdot Mirror


Debian Votes Against Mandating Non-systemd Compatibility

paskie writes: Voting on a Debian General Resolution that would require packagers to maintain support even for systems not running systemd ended tonight with the resolution failing to gather enough support.

This means that some Debian packages could require users to run systemd on their systems in theory — however, in practice Debian still works fine without systemd (even with e.g. GNOME) and this will certainly stay the case at least for the next stable release Jessie.

However, the controversial general resolution proposed late in the development cycle opened many wounds in the community, prompting some prominent developers to resign or leave altogether, stirring strong emotions — not due to adoption of systemd per se, but because of the emotional burn-out and shortcomings in the decision processes apparent in the wake of the systemd controversy.

Nevertheless, work on the next stable release is well underway and some developers are already trying to mend the community and soothe the wounds.

78 of 581 comments (clear)

  1. Go back in time 5 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Go back 5 years and imagine yourself trying to explain systemd to all the Linux developers. One massive program running at PID 0 doing 100 different jobs from startup scripts to DNS resolution complete with binary log files and a completely different (but the same) set of tools o manage them (grep less awk tail). You would be laughed at and run out of town. Nobody would ever take you seriously again.

    Can't wait for all of /etc to disappear and be merged into a single binary file like the Windows registry. I first ran into this nonsense when playing with a BeagleBone Black board. Go ahead and see if you can figure out how to change the ip address. In case you can't here is how you do it:

    http://derekmolloy.ie/set-ip-address-to-be-static-on-the-beaglebone-black/

    Tell me why any of that is necessary? It's exactly like how Windows manages network interfaces.

    1. Re:Go back in time 5 years by ledow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Agreed. I don't get systemd. If people want to use it, fine. But, like Windows 8 taught Microsoft, giving people a one-click way of going back to the old-and-tested interface is always a) possible and b) sensible.

      If systemd was really that good, I wouldn't need it foisted upon me forcibly, I'd be voluntarily choosing it rather than the default init on every distro I boot.

      I think worse than pushing it on your users is this - saying you won't support the old way of doing for those that don't want to change.

      All we need is one remote-root in systemd and people might start to think again.

    2. Re:Go back in time 5 years by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't see why your BeagleBone black example is systemd's fault. It has a convoluted way of managing network interfaces because it uses connman, a network-management daemon from Intel that is not part of systemd.

    3. Re:Go back in time 5 years by arth1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Tell me why any of that is necessary? It's exactly like how Windows manages network interfaces.

      Don't worry - systemd will handle that for you, and bring your interfaces up whether you want them up or not, using hundreds of sensible MSDOS .ini files. And if you run into problems, you can always check the systemd-journald binary logs through a suitable systemd secret decoder program. Unless, of course, the system went down before the non-transactional logging went to disk.

    4. Re:Go back in time 5 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      One massive program running at PID 0

      I don't know what trolling with massively inaccurate information gets you. It's not a massive program, it's a collection of small daemons implementing basic OS services needed by modern desktop and server deployments, one of which is PID 1.

    5. Re:Go back in time 5 years by morgauxo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Apparently any Debian developer can now chose to make their package only work with Systemd. So, any maintainer of a package that he uses has the opportunity to become that jackass.

    6. Re:Go back in time 5 years by morgauxo · · Score: 2

      I don't think he is saying that it is Systemd's fault. He is using it as an example of what he expects Systemd to become.

    7. Re:Go back in time 5 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      To be fair, you'd be laughed out of town for saying that today, too, partly because the init daemon runs at PID 1 (not zero), and partly because not all of the systemd daemons run at PID 1. There are quite a few of them and only the first has PID 1. If you'd like to learn more about systemd, or at least mask your obvious unfamiliarity with init systems, you may want to start with Wikipedia.

    8. Re:Go back in time 5 years by normaldotcom · · Score: 2

      I'm not sure if there if Angstrom ships with a better network manager, but Arch Linux Arm on the Beaglebone uses the netctl by default, which makes this process quite simple. Just copy and edit the ethernet-static config and systemctl start netctl@enp2s0.

      CONNECTION='ethernet'
      INTERFACE='enp2s0'
      IP='static'
      ADDR='192.168.0.200'
      GATEWAY='192.168.0.1'
      DNS=('192.168.0.1')

    9. Re:Go back in time 5 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The sane choice is migrating to FreeBSD

    10. Re:Go back in time 5 years by jbolden · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Go back 5 years and imagine yourself trying to explain systemd to all the Linux developers. One massive program running at PID 0 doing 100 different jobs from startup scripts to DNS resolution complete with binary log files and a completely different (but the same) set of tools o manage them (grep less awk tail). You would be laughed at and run out of town. Nobody would ever take you seriously again.

      BS. During the early 2000s the discussion of complex scheduling like existed in Solaris came up again and again. There was general agreement that while Linux was fine for simple Linux servers and workstations that the lack of advanced features made it unsuitable to replace big box Unix. Linux induced a financial collapse in big box Unixes now it needs to replace their complexity and functionality.

    11. Re:Go back in time 5 years by linuxgurugamer · · Score: 2

      Ummm, the fact that almost every distribution is adopting it and not giving you an alternative???

    12. Re:Go back in time 5 years by jbolden · · Score: 2

      If systemd was really that good, I wouldn't need it foisted upon me forcibly, I'd be voluntarily choosing it rather than the default init on every distro I boot.
       

      There are long term non-systemd distributions. Crux and Alpine for example. The mainstream distributions are having it foisted on them by upstream because open source developers do think it is that good. This isn't about system admins.

    13. Re:Go back in time 5 years by MrHanky · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And that's why no criticism of systemd is to be taken seriously: it's always about how terrible it will become in the future, never about actual problems it might have today.

    14. Re:Go back in time 5 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It is expected. Most systemd whiners have not explored systemd. They don't know how it works nor have they administered it. If they would have done that, they would have found that systemd is just fine. Actually systemd is much more professional than sysvinit and the hacky collection of hobbyist scripts surrounding it.

    15. Re:Go back in time 5 years by sjames · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Don't worry, there will be plenty of those. Here's one:

      I am testing Jessie with systemd and find that systemd absolutely refuses to mount a btrfs filesystem in degraded mode even though I explicitly set the option in fstab.

      Can anyone tell me how to either force it to at least attempt mounting or to have it leave fstab alone and call my script to do the mounting?

      No, dropping to an emergency shell so I can mount it manually over IPMI is not an acceptable alternative.

    16. Re:Go back in time 5 years by Anrego · · Score: 2

      As a Gentoo user, I can kinda relate to this.

      I've had to use the blacklist for the first time in a long damn while because (said in McBain voice) the USE flags, they do nothing!. Gnome indeed would seem the biggest offender. I don't even use gnome (openbox/xfce), but I have enough libraries and little utilities that were pulled in as dependencies for various things that I still had to spend hours dealing with stuff trying to pull in systemd.

      So even on a source based distro where systemd isn't the default it takes effort to have it not end up on your system. I can only imagine it's worse and will get worse on Debian.

    17. Re:Go back in time 5 years by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      Since Debian's not going to protect me from this svchost-cum-kitchen-sink abortion after all, looks like we're going to FreeBSD!

      See how that works? Then you'll be able to feel as superior about your OS to other linux distros, as you do about Windows.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    18. Re:Go back in time 5 years by andydread · · Score: 2

      in the old days if you wanted to set your DNS servers on Linux you edit /etc/resolv.conf and change them.. Done. no reboot or ifdown/ifup necessary. Nowadays? on Debian and Ubuntu at least with the resolvconf package you have to edit /etc/network/interfaces then ifdown/ifup your interface and if the interface is the only one and you are connnected via ssh you are screwed. or you have to reboot the server to get the changes to take effect. Or you have to type a fucking convoluted command eg:

      echo "nameserver 192.168.3.45
      nameserver 192.168.8.10
      search example.com" | sudo resolvconf -a eth0.inet
      if you want the changes to take effect immediately without rebooting or ifdown/ifup the interface.
      This is ass backwards. I remember the old days when we used to make fun of Windows for having to reboot after changing DNS server settings. Here you have a modern Linux OS that basically requires you to reboot, down your interface, or type a dumb string of commands consiting of echo and pipes. Ridiculous. While i'm not a fan of systemd I hope this shit gets fixed and simplifed with the advent systemd

    19. Re:Go back in time 5 years by Dredd13 · · Score: 2

      Tell that to BetaMax.

    20. Re:Go back in time 5 years by the_B0fh · · Score: 3, Funny

      Soon, all linux distros will contain 3 files: /boot/image-blah /vmlinuz /sbin/systemd

      You won't need anything else!

    21. Re:Go back in time 5 years by Eunuchswear · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Most debian developers force you to use the linux kernel.

      While I agree with most of your post this bit is wrong. Many (most?) Debian packages do not force you to use the Linux kernel.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    22. Re:Go back in time 5 years by Carewolf · · Score: 2

      All so completely co-dependent that they are an all or nothing proposition. Thus, one massive program.

      No it isn't. It is completely modular. In only have the init part installed, I can choose to opt in to other modules as I wish. It is all one project, but it is a MODULAR project.

    23. Re:Go back in time 5 years by doom · · Score: 2

      Actually, I think it's a problem that the anti-systemd forces keep going on about "the unix way" and what-not... haven't they been paying attention to the way things really work? (Hint: if esr says it, it's probably not quite right. [1])

      Perl kicked Bourne butt by merging nearly everything you want into one process-- that's something you'd think a sysadmin would've noticed.

      It is however a point that betting your system security on a new, gigantic project is kind of dubious, and I have a lot of sympathy with people objecting to gratuitious changes that obsolete decades worth of learning on how to manage a unix box.

      [1] The actual "Unix Way" is "do one thing sort-of-okay and trick it out with options, configuration files and customization languages until you can't tell if it's going to fry eggs or go to the bathroom".

    24. Re: Go back in time 5 years by Eunuchswear · · Score: 3, Informative

      Because:

      apt-get install sysvinit-core systemd-shim

      is too hard for them.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    25. Re:Go back in time 5 years by blue9steel · · Score: 2

      This isn't about system admins.

      Of course not, that would suggest that the primary users actually have influence on the development process. It's just unthinkable.

    26. Re:Go back in time 5 years by TangoMargarine · · Score: 2

      Red Hat. Via GNOME.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    27. Re:Go back in time 5 years by StormReaver · · Score: 2

      Go back 5 years and imagine yourself trying to explain systemd to all the Linux developers.

      That depends on how you do it. If you were to use the massive disinformation campaign you're perpetuating, and those who know better didn't speak up, then systemd would die on the vine. However, if you accurately describe what systemd does, then Linux would be five years ahead of where it is now.

      Having actually read what systemd does, I'm looking forward to seeing it on my machines. It seems to solve several important problems, and seems to be well architected.

      So far, every argument against systemd I've read has been a strawman (invent a problem that systemd doesn't actually have, then argue against it). The anti-systemd campaign has been truly bizarre, but that's how ignorance is typically presented.

    28. Re:Go back in time 5 years by arth1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      There are long term non-systemd distributions. Crux and Alpine for example. The mainstream distributions are having it foisted on them by upstream because open source developers do think it is that good. This isn't about system admins.

      The sysadmins are the meal ticket of developers. For years now, we've been saying we don't want systemd unless it can be made compatible and standalone. Now Red Hat calls me and wonders why I choose to install RHEL 6 on new systems, given that RHEL 7 is out. Why? Because we told you in advance what we wanted, and you chose not to listen.

      Sysadmins are in a position to choose their operating systems. The developers are not in a position to choose their customers.

    29. Re:Go back in time 5 years by arth1 · · Score: 2

      BS. During the early 2000s the discussion of complex scheduling like existed in Solaris came up again and again. There was general agreement that while Linux was fine for simple Linux servers and workstations that the lack of advanced features made it unsuitable to replace big box Unix. Linux induced a financial collapse in big box Unixes now it needs to replace their complexity and functionality.

      What you say doesn't hang on a pitchfork.
      If the big commercial unix versions (Solaris, AIX, HPUX, IRIX) failed due to their complexity, the solution for the winner, Linux, is not to increase complexity. It's because of the toolbox approach where you can always upgrade one component without touching others that Linux won. Going back to smit-like administration abstracted five ways from hell and with tentacles into everything and its godmother isn't going to make people flock to Linux.

      Splitting sysv init into a couple of even simpler and lower level components might.

    30. Re:Go back in time 5 years by by+(1706743) · · Score: 2

      My favorite was when I apt-get upgraded my (headless) machine, which would then refuse to boot. No SSH access, just an emergency shell (very annoying for a headless machine). The problem? I didn't have my external USB hard disk -- which had an /etc/fstab entry -- plugged in.

    31. Re: Go back in time 5 years by JohnFen · · Score: 2

      It is more opaque and nonstandard.

      However, the thing that makes it a dealbreaker for me is that it reduces the granularity and flexibility of the system. It absorbs far too many system services. If it were just an init manager, I'd have no real qualms with it. That it goes way beyond that, and important applications are beginning to require it, means that it signifies a huge shift away from the sort of system architecture that is the very reason I'm using GNU/Linux systems to begin with.

      Since it's removing a real advantage of GNU/Linux systems without giving me any benefits that matter to me, its presence is an overall degradation of the OS.

      If Debian had done the right thing and preserved user choice by creating a distro that realistically allows you to avoid using systemd, none of this would be a problem. That's why the failure of this GR is such a disaster: it's Debian voting against user choice.

    32. Re:Go back in time 5 years by jbolden · · Score: 2

      RedHat has clearly picked their direction with IaaS and PaaS. Just as they moved from desktop to server they are moving from small server deployment to large server deployment, moving up market. Mostly I suspect traditionalist sysadmins were running CentOS anyway.

    33. Re:Go back in time 5 years by visualight · · Score: 2

      My platform, and the 130 developers that code for it, are moving to Slackware when Jessie comes out. Fuck'em.

      --
      Samsung took back my unlocked bootloader because Google wants me to rent movies. They're both evil.
    34. Re:Go back in time 5 years by ruir · · Score: 3, Informative

      My test installations were (almost) barebone servers, between 300-500 MB, Wheezy servers. No Gnome, no X, nothing complicated. And sysv init. The test servers were running each one a single service daemon besides ssh... one was dhcpd, the other Apache, another BIND, and the last one MySQL. Each and everyone of them, upon upgrade to Jessie, ignored the sysv installation and installed systemd without any warning or request to do it. The sysinit packages were *ignored*. And once I booted one of them, it was not trivial to get rid of systemd. Either you deinstall it before booting, and upgrade manually sys v init packages, or pin systemd to -1 BEFORE upgrading to jessie. I took the last approach, and in my Wheezy production services I already propagated a configuration to pin systemd in all of them, bidding for the time of their eventual upgrade.

    35. Re:Go back in time 5 years by unixisc · · Score: 3, Informative

      How practical is this for the desktop?

      This is actually a serious question. I'm not overly familiar with BSD but have been thinking about giving it a shot on the desktop. I've been a Gentoo user for many years and am reasonably comfortable diving into stuff, so I don't anticipate user friendliness being a show stopper, more likely something I can currently do on Linux won't be available or will have poor support in BSD.

      The main things I'm concerned with are Minecraft/FTB, mplayer, flash, VirtualBox, OpenRA, and jack/rakarrack. I'm open to alternatives as long as they actually work.

      Flash I could probably live without, but much as I hate it, browsing the web sans-flash does still pose the occasional problem. jack/rakarrack I could also probably live without. I currently use my desktop as a quick-n-dirty guitar amp/effects stack. OpenRA is the thing I anticipate having the most problems with, but I play it somewhat obsessively so very much desired.

      At some point I'll probably just try it and see, but I'm curious if any other slashdotter has gone this route and has anything interesting to say about it.

      I installed PC-BSD after a couple of weeks w/ Windows 8, & by & large, it's been good, for the things I do. Unfortunately, my Wi-Fi wasn't recognized, so I have to run an ethernet cable to my laptop. Other than that, the experience was generally okay, but could have been better.

      The first time I tried installing it, it took a few guesses for me to go into BIOS, disable UEFI (at that time, I was installing 9; now, under 10.1, UEFI is supposedly supported, if you're installing from scratch), and then go into install. I had a few hiccups in getting the system not to go into a loop while installing, but once I got around it, the installation was a breeze - except of course, for the non-support of the Centrino

      Once I logged into the first account created, I had some glitches in creating more user accounts from the GUI - had to do an adduser from the CLI (that bug has since been fixed, since more recently, I can). I created different accounts for different roles - one primary one to do all my day to day work like banking, making payments to various cards, personal emails, et al. And others for different things that I do, such as job exploring, or posting to /. here. Each of them, I try different DEs, such as Lumina, LXDE, KDE and GNOME.

      This week, I upgraded the system to 10.1, and a lot of the bugs I had went away. I still haven't enabled UEFI, since that would require backing up all the data and then doing a fresh install, and there is no single utility in PC-BSD to do all that, and this is not a hot issue w/ me. So, right now, I'm happy w/ my system.

      On the things you were asking, there is Virtual Box, but I haven't tried the other things. For sound players, there is VLC and a whole host of other such utilities. Talking about Flash, I've installed it in FireFox, but not in Chromium (Chrome itself is not there in FreeBSD). But I have no issues watching YouTube videos, if that's what your need for Flash is, w/o Flash and under Chromium, in HTML5. Not tried Minecraft, for me, the favorite game is FreeCiv.

      One thing that PC-BSD does great is integrating things, so that any utility will work in any DE. For instance, GTK apps work great under Qt based environments like KDE, Lumina and LXDE, while Qt apps like Calligra work great under GNOME 3.14. One thing - the PC-BSD control panel is quite advanced, and does a better job of system management than trying to edit files in /etc. I tried that last week when I had to replace a router and change the default gateway address - it refused to save my changes to /etc/resolv.conf, but when I went into PC-BSD control panel's network and changed it there, it worked like a charm.

      As usual, YMMV

    36. Re:Go back in time 5 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The ones who really lose out here are the Free Software Foundation and GNU, they have used Linux as the poster child for restrictive open source licenses but when it comes to the crunch people dont give 2 shits about it.

      Rather than take the existing SysV init codebase from a distro like Debian, fork and maintain it with the manpower of the masses who oppose systemd they choose to run away to BSD, all those advantages of free software not being able to force anything on anybody have been stomped, the revelation is that it was all bullshit because it's just too hard (though oddly there is a supposed minority that are the ones holding all the power and it is everybody else that is uncapable of maintaining a Linux distro).

      And when BSD distros incorporate systemd? Where will you run to then?

      It is a terrible defeatist attitude of the Linux community, you have the code, you have the tools, you supposedly have the people (apparently the anti-systemd crowd is the majority) and you do nothing. You have been given everything but you will just throw it all away.

    37. Re:Go back in time 5 years by fgodfrey · · Score: 2

      THIS (* see below) dizzying pile of config files with nondescript names. And that doesn't even include the set of names that are magically generated either implicitly and from other files. For reference, /etc/init.d has less than half this many files. Furthermore, to know what actually is going to boot, I cd into a directory and type "ls". Can anyone tell me which of these is actually going to execute when my machine boots?

      To answer a non-rehetorical question: Can any of the systemd lovers (or haters, I'm not picky) tell me how the heck I move /var to a different filesystem without editing every single file in that directory below? Just putting the mount point in /etc/fstab doesn't work because stuff that depends on /var executes before /var gets mounted. I added a unit file to mount /var and gave it a "before" dependency on dbus (which is the first thing that seems to break), but it starts dbus while it's doing the fsck on /var anyway.

      (*) The list was going to go here. But it's so long Slashdot won't let me post it. There are 255 unit files in /usr/lib/systemd/system. They have fun names like "systemd-tmpfiles-setup-dev.service".

      --
      Go Badgers! -- #include "std/disclaimer.h"
    38. Re:Go back in time 5 years by sjames · · Score: 2

      The point here is that of all of the advocates claiming systemd skeptics are just afraid of change and that systemd is just fine as is cannot seem to come up with a solution to this problem. It's almost as if they don't actually know anything about the software they advocate...

      As for solutions, I know a free one involving going back to sysvinit. I'm not going to get paid support for a test installation. If a simple problem can't be solved simply, it will just be rated not ready for prime time.

    39. Re:Go back in time 5 years by Peter+H.S. · · Score: 2

      I think most DD will be much more inclined to keep supporting non-systemd inits if they weren't called "jackass's", and their name and their distro weren't constantly attacked, and their mailings list trolled by people who want them to keep supporting SysVinit.

      It is a failed strategy to think open source development is done by harassing developers and throwing tantrums on developer mailing lists and in bug trackers. Asking nicely and making an effort to help will bring much better results.

       

    40. Re:Go back in time 5 years by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 2

      I'm interested in the next year of quarterly earnings reports. If sysadmins successfully communicate that they would rather not purchase support for systemd distros, then the market has spoken.

      A thousand angry nerds on the internet mean little compared with one lost contract.

      The financial impact will be slow to show, and the response will probably be immediate, but again slow to slow. Then things should move rather quickly.

      Whether there are responsible people in the role as CTO of large businesses will soon be apparent.

      n.b. "responsible" is a very specific word.

    41. Re: Go back in time 5 years by ruir · · Score: 2

      The question is why I do want to remove it. The proper question is why in a what should be a simple operation of an upgrade, why my server configs are changed without my asking and without my authorization. So I upgrade to find my way of working, the default corporate configurations that were pre-approved, and my hand-crafted scripts to safeguard some services are no longer working. All because of a whim of some boneheaded developers. Very nice indeed. As for politics, besides the configuration pre-approvals, we follow the Unix way of installing the bare essential, and systemd brings on-board a lot of crap and stupid package dependencies for a bare bones server.

  2. This is the same community by TheReaperD · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is the same community that you can still start a street fight, or at least a troll war, by asking "Which is better: emacs or vi?" I'm not sure they're ever going to get over this. But, like the above question, the world will move on and leave them behind.

    --
    "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
    1. Re:This is the same community by TheReaperD · · Score: 2

      Take your vim and shove it! </sarcasm>

      --
      "Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
    2. Re:This is the same community by morgauxo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, you are right. It is always better to not fight. If something inferior is becoming the new standard then oh well. It is better to just let it happen than to show the outside world an ounce of disagreement. As soon as a community does that they might get some internet person posting snarky comments about leaving them behind. The horror!

    3. Re:This is the same community by morgauxo · · Score: 2

      But commercial isn't the same at all. Commercial developers are employees. They don't have to like the direction their product is going. They are paid to work on it, they are paid to do what their bosses tell them to do. I work on commercial software myself. Sometimes I don't like the direction my company takes. I can give my bosses my thoughts, sometimes it even makes a difference. At the end of the day I compromise by doing what I am told to do and they compromise by signing my paycheck.

      Why would a developer who isn't being paid keep developing if they don't like the direction the project is going? It doesn't make any sense! If the decision makers aren't compromising then all they can do is either continue to fight or just give up and walk away. Donating their time and effort to a project they no longer agree with would be pretty foolish. You only get so much time and then you die. By not giving up and continuing to fight Systemd what they are doing is trying not to give up on Debian. It isn't a choice between fighting and giving in. It's a choice between fighting and giving up. No doubt many of them have a lot of time and energy already invested in Debian and would not want to lose that.

    4. Re:This is the same community by exomondo · · Score: 2

      Systemd won all the hipsters who think Gnome devs make good decisions. The working sys admins are still on the other side of the room, admiring BSD.

      It's the developers who made this choice, if they were a minority then the majority could easily continue maintaining distributions with SystemV init systems and the systemd distros would die out. I understand not everybody can be a developer but the core concept of open source is that if you don't like what the author has produced you either develop it yourself or pay somebody to develop what you want for you, it seems people are reluctant to do that and are instead choosing to move to BSD. But that's not really a solution, that's just running away from the problem. What if BSD goes the way of systemd? Then what?

  3. Kum-ba-yah by arth1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    some developers are already trying to mend the community and soothe the wounds.

    I'm not sure that giving people warm fuzzies should take priority over steering the ship in a direction that has proven successful for more than a generation, and which has allowed diversity to flourish.

  4. Insight by think_nix · · Score: 3, Informative

    more insightfult news and posts from lwn. Regarding burnout and voicing concerns over systemd. lwn.net lwn.net

  5. not quite; voted not to decide the issue this way by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's a bit more of a meta-outcome. The option that won the vote said, more or less: the General Resolution (GR) process in Debian is not the right way to resolve this dispute.

    There was a proposed option which would actually have explicitly said: packages are not required to maintain non-systemd compatibility. But that option did not win.

  6. its all about choice. by nimbius · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Im not sure who at debian proposed this idea, that packagers be required to maintain support for non-systemd applications, but its untenable at best. It would mean a redesign of gnome, KDE, and a dearth of other code that in many cases makes no sense (how does networkManager get this treatment outside the scope of systemd?) this particular vote also smacks of an attempt at debian character assassination. the fact is that Debian, and Ubuntu, need to sit down and recognize is that open source software means If i, or users, want rc-init support in Debian for a package we can code it.. If the package doesnt do what we want we can either commit, fork, change packages, or change operating systems. Bureaucratic red tape seems to be an Ubuntu specialty thats strong-armed its way into debian from the start of Systemd. pointless electoral procedures avoid the cusp of the communities argument. SystemD is controversial enough that Debian should give the user the choice to decide whether they want systemd.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:its all about choice. by morgauxo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why do KDE and Gnome require Systemd as designed? Can someone explain that to me? I really don't get it. They are Desktop managers. They put decorations on windows and shortcuts plus widgets on the desktop. Systemd is an init replacement. It manages the starting of daemons. What the h377 does one have to do with the other? I think Systemd is not the only bloated, over-reaching project if this is a problem.

    2. Re:its all about choice. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I fail to understand the reasoning for choice as well.

      I think I get this.

      One example: I have a handful of shell and perl scripts that I use to manage virtual machine interdependencies at startup time - this vm needs to be listening on this port before I can think about starting this other vm, etc. and I express that in a JSON tree for configuration.

      I've recently been noticing that the dependency "engine" is a bit buggy and also duplicates much of what systemd already provides (pre-dating it by some years), so I'm going to look at making it work with systemd instead and cutting out a bunch of the code. That also gets me pretty easy dependency tracking on various filesystem mounts, network status, etc., so it could be better than 'sleep 20' in some spots.

      Now, if I wanted to offer that up to the community, somebody could choose to package that into Debian. Assuming my experiment works, systemd would be a hard requirement to use this particular system.

      Somebody in the Debian community proposed that for this package to be accepted I would also have to [re]write another dependency engine and support that. I can't see doing that if the systemd approach works.

      Does it make sense that people who don't want to run systemd (which is fine) also can't impose additional work on developers who do want to use systemd?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    3. Re:its all about choice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They want a process to handle things like shutdown, reboot and hibernate via a UI dialog. Previously, Consolekit was that process. But Consolekit was scuttled in favor of Logind. And Logind is dependent on Systemd running as pid1.

      Btw, the guy that had the reins of Consolekit at the time of its closure was Poettering...

    4. Re:its all about choice. by fnj · · Score: 2

      For one thing, they are using systemd to query and make changes to the system config, since they have GUIs that need to do this. IMO they should be written to fall back to the old way of doing this directly if systemd is not present, but the tradeoff is extra programming and maintenance work.

    5. Re:its all about choice. by morgauxo · · Score: 2

      They could just call /sbin/shutdown. I used KDE for years BEFORE there was such a thing as consolekit and it worked this way just fine!

    6. Re:its all about choice. by rdnetto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The only reason, AFAIK, is because it's of strategic advantage to the systemd project, and by extension, Red Hat. (If someone has evidence to the contrary, I'd love to hear it.)

      I've used systemd since mid-2013, and since then I've acquired a fair few reasons to dislike it, but it's the management of the project that bothers me more than any technical aspect. The systemd modules all seem to depend on the process manager and journal. The process manager requires that systemd also acts as init,* and user instances require a root instance. None of these dependencies need to exist - even the journalling library could be replaced by a shim that just forwards everything to stderr. Traditionally they would have been separate projects and such dependencies wouldn't exist.

      * Systemd is a much better process manager than SysVinit, but there was never any reason to prevent the user from choosing another init.

      --
      Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
  7. Re:The Systemd Fiasco or Hello FreeBSD by c0d3g33k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Linux has become the laughingstock of the computing world thanks to the Systemd Fiasco.

    An entire operating system trashed by a single incompetent clown and his shit pet project rammed down distro throats by his foaming at the mouth fanboys.

    A healthy open source community would never have let this fiasco happen.

    Hello FreeBSD. A pure Unix operating system run by grownups only interested in technical excellence.

    There seems to be a little foaming at the mouth going on right there in your own post.

  8. Debian OS is no longer of use to me now by popoutman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    My feelings on this matter? :(
    I intensely dislike systemd and all of its methodology - it's not the Unix way, and I really dislike the systemd developer's attitudes towards bugfixes and other problems with their processes. Systemd is a solution looking for a problem.
    As an admin in a company with something like 50,000 *nix machines, of which I have root on about 10,000 of them, systemd will not be making an appearance on any of these systems and the vendors have been appraised of this fact. Any vendor that cannot provide an alternative to systemd will not be in the running for the next phase of server rebuilds.
    Personally, I think I'll be migrating all my own personal servers and the servers of my University's computer society to something a lot more useful and not requiring systemd to boot. Going to be a fun time.

    --
    - This sig deliberately left blank. Nothing to see, move along.
    1. Re:Debian OS is no longer of use to me now by Bengie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      SystemD is a liability for sysadmins, it is the only logical decision unless you have support contract with RedHat. There's already stories of "I moved to FreeBSD to solve one issue and realized it made things so much easier. Instead of 10,000 RedHat servers, we now have 3,000 FreeBSD doing the same work, and the reduced time managing the systems frees me up to work on other things". One of the biggest reasons for sysadmins loving FreeBSD is how "unixy" it is, and systemd is anti-unix.

      Sysadmins live and die by their automated scripts. There are scripts that were made 15 years ago for FreeBSD, and they still work to this day. Linus takes the stance of "don't break userland". If you're going to break your user's scripts, you'd better have a damned good reason.

  9. Go back in time 5 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You are aware that most of the systemd daemons do NOT run on PID 1 (and none of them on PID 0), right?

  10. I'm starting to think... by CFBMoo1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That SystemD is bad for Linux not because of the technical merits but the political BS drama it's spawning. Technical wise I can see why server admins want to have the fine grain control of their start up through individual scripts. It makes sense to me even though I don't do administration. KISS is the order of the day and flat text files beat out binaries any day. Now for desktops SystemD seems fine to me for people who run out of the box systems.

    Honestly the whole thing sounds to be a fix that works better for some things but is getting shoved in to other areas where it isn't needed, wanted, and maybe even detrimental to the operation of other systems. Kinda like when Ubuntu/Gnome went with more touchy modern interfaces on desktops when really it was tablets and phones their interfaces made the most positive impact while negatively effecting others on the desktop.

    I think it's time for some people to get over the one size fits all mentality in the Linux community. Obviously other people have problems with it and it's going to end up tearing you apart in the long run while scaring off others who sit on the sides playing with the toys you folks made up to this point. That's going to leave companies like Microsoft grinning like a Cheshire Cat.

    --
    ~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
    1. Re:I'm starting to think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "flat text files beat out binaries any day"

      FFS. What are systemd unit files written in? Plain text. What are they processed using? A binary executable. Guess what Bash is: a binary executable, that also processes plain text files. It's just that systemd handles much of the logic itself, making unit files MUCH smaller and simpler, and mitigating the need to copy and paste boilerplate sh code everywhere just to monitor a daemon.

      This entire Slashdot thread is chock full of, literally, nonsensical claims about systemd. Everyone else -- including distro developers that really know their stuff -- is moving on with it. For some reason, Slashdot is still full of people who clearly know nothing about it, but spout the same old myths that were debunked 12 months ago. It's not surprising that Slashdot is losing regular readers...

  11. Re:Systemd works OK in Fedora by RabidReindeer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Systemd works OK in Fedora, so I don't see a serious need to run to Slackware, but if I was running a server, then I would probably use FreeBSD anyway, not Linux.

    Not.

    I got reminded why I didn't like this idea yesterday.

    System wouldn't reboot. Flipped to the alternate consoles to see the logs and command shell. GONE.

    Finally figured it out. It was a USB device and it had to be unplugged or the whole boot process would hang without any information displayed.

    I've said it before and I'll say it over and over. I like the concept of a wireable process management system. But what systemd did to logging is an abomination. I didn't like binary logs in OS/2 and I still despise them.

  12. Re:That is the problem by Trepidity · · Score: 2

    Well, ifconfig on Linux hasn't had a release since 2001, and is considered deprecated by the Linux devs. Some distributions provide its former functionality via iproute2, which is sort of a successor. However it's pretty low-level. In some environments (esp. servers sitting in a colo) it's perfectly fine. It tends not to do what people expect from a network stack on movable devices though: saved wifi networks and wifi autoconnect, sane management of hotpluggable interfaces, etc. For that, you need some kind of wrapper around it, which is what network-management daemons provide (in varying forms).

  13. Re:That is the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Funny thing, i could have sworn that even Torvalds claimed he would stop using ifconfig when they pried it from his cold dead hands. And i can see why. The ip command is convoluted to the extreme. Just looking up the interfaces and their addresses seems to need some switch or other, never mind toggling a interface state or changing the address.

  14. Re:Systemd Is Inevitable by organgtool · · Score: 2

    From what I gather, it's not *that* bad - most apps depending on systemd do so for the cgroups support.

    That's the case now but soon desktop environments will start using logind and applications may start using journald. As systemd continues to offer more tightly-coupled modules, applications will likely start relying more on these modules until the point that systemd will likely be a requirement for almost all applications and desktop environments.

  15. No, wrong community by Kludge · · Score: 2

    Yes, there are emacs/vi fights, but in truth these are in fun. There is not a single vi user who would say that they should build a distribution where emacs did not work. There is not a single emacs user who would say it is OK to build a distribution where vi did not work. Everyone in this community would really say, even though you may be stupid for making your choice, our distribution should work under whichever you choose.
    This General Resolution was about making certain that the distribution still worked even if someone chose to use a different init system. I am not sure why that is contentious.

  16. Re:Systemd works OK in Fedora by Bengie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They already are. A lot of the FreeBSD people are sysadmins and there's already conversion stories where these FreeBSD guys admin datacenters and some of their clients are already completely switching to FreeBSD because their sysadmins hate systemd. Then the clients realize how awesome FreeBSD is and start tell their friends, who are also sysadmins. ZFS is like crack, once they've tried it, there's no going back.

    Linux distros seem to be going the way of "We're awesome, so we'll alienate all the non-awesome people and then everyone will be awesome!". Only to realize later that they gutted what made them great in the first place. They don't realize how important it was to have things the way they were because they didn't use them. Screw those power users! Who needs them anyway? Like a corporation that just let go all of their engineers and now only have marketing and sales. How long will it last? Who cares! It looks great on the quarterly report!

  17. Re:The Systemd Fiasco or Hello FreeBSD by Eunuchswear · · Score: 3, Funny

    Rubbish. FreeBSD is insecure crap. You should be using OpenBSD.

    OpenBSD is run by that thug Theo, you should try NetBSD.

    What a jerk - only a loser would use NetBSD, it's DragonFly or nothing.

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  18. Re:Systemd works OK in Fedora by Eunuchswear · · Score: 2

    Or try it with some fava beans and a nice chianti.

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  19. Another Annoying Dependency? by vadim_t · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You're barking up the wrong tree. I don't think you remember how things were before PulseAudio.

    You had /dev/dsp or later /dev/snd. Since the kernel doesn't do sound mixing, they were one user only, unless the soundcard provided mixing. Which a lot of them didn't. So esd, artsd and similar appeared. Running KDE and want sound in the one Gnome app you use? Have fun making esd run against artsd. Want to run an old game or app that only knows about /dev/dsp? Sorry, artsd has it busy. You make it auto-close the device when unused? Unreliable as hell. USB audio? what is that? Certainly no plugging and unplugging support there. For a while dmix was all the rage. Thing is, dmix is implemented in the ALSA libraries, which means it does nothing for you unless your app uses ALSA libraries, so it doesn't help your any with your /dev/dsp using app.

    PA was created to solve all this mess. PA basically handles everything and provides interfaces for everything, so finally pretty much all apps can talk whatever protocol they like, and work. And audio can be reconfigured as you plug and unplug devices.

    Was it unreliable for a while? Yes. But there is still nothing better. The kernel doesn't mix audio. You need a daemon by design, and you need something PA-like to provide a modern level of functionality. The only way to do without PA is have the kernel implement all that, and as far as I know, the kernel devs don't want it.

  20. Ian Jackson resigns from Debian CTTE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    https://lists.debian.org/debian-ctte/2014/11/msg00091.html

    I am resigning from the Technical Committee with immediate effect.

    While it is important that the views of the 30-40% of the project who
    agree with me should continue to be represented on the TC, I myself am
    clearly too controversial a figure at this point to do so. I should
    step aside to try to reduce the extent to which conversations about
    the project's governance are personalised.

    And, speaking personally, I am exhausted.

    The majority of the project have voted to say that it was wrong of me
    to bring this GR at this time. Despite everything that's happened, I
    respectfully disagree. I hope that the next time a controversial
    issue arises, someone will step forward to advance what might be a
    minority view.

    Thanks to everyone who has served with me on the TC. I wish those who
    remain on the TC the best for the future and I hope that you'll find
    colleagues who are as good to work with as you have been to me.

    I now hope to spend more of my free software time doing programming.
    dgit is at the top of my Debian queue, but some of my GNU and SGO
    projects could do with attention too.

    Thanks,
    Ian.

  21. Re:Signs clear enough even for a layman by VGPowerlord · · Score: 2

    It's funny that you mention Wayland.

    systemd is all about putting the kitchen sink into the startup proces.

    Wayland is all about removing the kitchen sink from the window manager. (seriously, why does it include a network protocol?)

    --
    GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
  22. Re:Another Annoying Dependency? by Endymion · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I don't think you remember how things were before PulseAudio.

    No, we remember quite clearly. ALSA worked just fine, with only one easily fixed issue: distros needed to set asourdrc to use dmix by default. Those of us that have multiple soundcards and pre demanding requirements (music pa/production)went through the minor trouble of setting up jackd, which solved all the rest of the problems regarding synchronization and very-low-latency data processing.

    Really, the only thing that ALSA needed was a nice GUI editor/frontend for the config file. Those of us that used jackd already had such an editor (qjackctl, among others).

    Oh, what's that? You want to claim that PA forced better drivers? That may be true, but it is not a feature of PA, nor a reason to use it. (driver fixes are orthogonal, to which software uses the drver) . Some of us actually read the hardware compatability lists before buying our hardware, too, and never had a problem with stabilitgy.

    PA basically handles everything and provides interfaces for everything,

    Yes, it is a wrapper around ALSA (unless you someohow usedd some some other type of sound driver than the ALSA snd-card-*.ko kernel modules). It adds latency and a giant pile of useless overengineering, when a simple config file was all that was needed (and maybe GUI editor for that file). Any of the fancier features provides were better served by jackd anyway.

    Oh, and that's when it works. Even just a year ago, when I last tried PA, it introduce a shocking number of compatability problems for no good reason, and stilll added a LOT of latency.. I'm not even talking about the non-sound issues!) by simply uninstalling PA so everything fell back to using ALSA by itself. The list is so large now, that even non-technical people I know make jokes about how bad PA is.

    As usual, while there is some need for improvement in ALSA ( and other linux features, but the bloated, non-working, latency adding mess called PulaseAudio is *not* the solution.

    --
    Ce n'est pas une signature automatique.
  23. Systemd pain now by ansak · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm running arch. Arch moved to systemd before I understood the issues at stake. I feel the systemd pain every day. I'm trying to get multi-head with nouveau working (a different set of pain, that I'll probably just switch to nvidia blobs to get around -- unless someone can point me where I want to be -- but I digress)

    ...and I don't understand why "systemctl isolate multi-user.target" vs. "systemctl isolate graphical.target" [try explaining THAT pair of command lines to start with] can't be expected to be as dependable as "telinit 3" vs. "telinit 5".

    If I couldn't ssh into the box from somewhere else regularly, I'd be hitting the Big Switch a lot and we all know how well file systems take that kind of shenanigans.

    I don't need to wait five years to hate systemd. I hate it more and more every day. My feelings do not extend to the authors -- as humans, they deserve my compassion and (in this case) pity. But I hate their software with a passion that grows more intense by the day. This is a sad day for Debian, it was one of the places I was thinking of escaping to.

    --
    Still hoping for Gentle Treatment...
  24. Re:Signs clear enough even for a layman by jbolden · · Score: 2

    Yeah it is a remarkable change in attitude on /. over the past 15 years. People used to be thrilled about change. Now they hate it. If it were the old fogies like me I can understand, get off my lawn... But it is the young guys who seem the most fearful of change and stuck in their ways. I really realized this during the IPv6 debates when the idea of changing a network system was unthinkable. Dammit where would you all be if my generation had ripped DECNet et al out?

  25. Re:Systemd works OK in Fedora by JohnFen · · Score: 2

    I'd doubt that Linux is alienating power users. What it is alienating is traditionalist system admins.

    I know a lot of non-sysadmin Linux users who very alienated by this whole thing.