Slashdot Mirror
SystemD Gains New Networking Features
jones_supa writes A lot of development work is happening on systemd with just the recent couple of weeks seeing over 200 commits. With the most recent work that has landed, the networkd component has been improved with new features. Among the additions are IP forwarding and masquerading support (patch). This is the minimal support needed and these settings get turned on by default for container network interfaces. Also added was minimal firewall manipulation helpers for systemd's networkd. The firewall manipulation helpers (patch) are used for establishing NAT rules. This support in systemd is provided by libiptc, the library used for communicating with the Linux kernel's Netfilter and changing iptables firewall rulesets. Those wishing to follow systemd development on a daily basis and see what is actually happening under the hood, can keep tabs via the systemd Git viewer.
Christ almighty, this beast is a fucking monster. What's next, a shell and a userland?
Glad I'm heading to FreeBSD. Linux is going down the tubes.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
http://youtu.be/VSbNumR9Z8k
I heard the new SystemD Office word processor will be awesome.
SystemD is the joke that isn't funny. This is just getting ridiculous. Pottering and his band of evil worms are literally trying to intrude their piece of shit Window-esque system into absolutely every corner of Linux. I'm getting out of LInux entirely. If I wanted to run Windows, I'd run fucking Windows.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
systemd seems dead set on becoming an alternative operative system.
Which wouldn't be a bad thing if it wasn't ruining perfectly good operating systems like Debian while it grows.
I've stuck with Debian for a pretty long time (since around 2000) mostly because I know how everything works. But in the last year running testing, more and more frequently I'll find that something has been yanked out and replaced by something harder to use and understand. Maybe it's finally time to switch to BSD instead.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Just wait for SystemD VM Hypervisor. It will be SystemDs all the way down.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Y'know, for all it's flaws, warts, and Dice-y-ness, I think it's a good sign that the clickbait here is stuff about systemd.
Seriously - on other websites they'll drive up pageviews by posting something like "This just in: politicians you disagree with are EVIL!! EEEEEEVIIIIIL!".
What whips up the /. crowd into a frothy frenzy? :)
Systemd
Samsung is coming out with a new line of phones that run SystemD instead of Android.
Cybernetic terminators are in the next release, I'm sure, along with seeding the galaxy with DNA, and a beer recipe database.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
What the hell is happening to the Linux ecosystem?
I've been a user of it for a couple of decades now. Although it wasn't perfect, for years it provided a better environment for me than Windows or even OS X could provide.
But that's really started to change maybe within the past 5 years. The first major debacle I can think of is GNOME 3. They went out of their way to ignore everything good about GNOME 2, and instead forced all sorts of stupid ideas upon us.
Firefox is the next debacle I can think of. It's a lot like GNOME 3 in many ways. There was a good, reliable, usable browser in Firefox 3.5. Then it all went to hell in Firefox 4 and beyond.
Now we have systemd, which is obviously dumb in pretty much all respects. It just doesn't fit within the Linux ecosystem at all. That's probably why it's so disruptive.
What makes systemd worse, though, is the impact it has had on pretty much all of the major Linux distros. Pretty much all of the most usable and useful ones (sorry, Slackware, this excludes you) have switched to it, with horrible results.
The stability of my Debian testing system has gone down the shitter since they switched to systemd some time ago. I've had more problems properly booting my system in the past six months than I had in the 15 years prior to systemd getting installed.
I'm torn at this point. I'm probably going to buy a Mac and move to OS X for my personal system, while moving all of my servers over to FreeBSD as soon as I can. I'm pretty sure that I'm done with Linux at this point. I just don't think the ecosystem can be salvaged. So much good software has been ruined.
When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem is a nail.
Noob coders who simply throw more and more code and "problems" are a perfect example. They don't know when to stop coding up solutions in search of problems.
Systemd devs are a perfect example.
I've already had it fail to boot on one system and fail to shut down on another. It failed to unmount disks because they were "in use" by systemd, and this resulted in filesystem corruption on the hard power-off.
Systemd is truly the best thing that has ever happened to the BSD community.
Systemd alone is making Linux totally unsuitable for serious use. So what are people doing when a formerly-stable distro like Debian adopts systemd and becomes a disaster? They're moving to FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Dragonfly BSD and PC-BSD.
Just today we find out that DigitalOcean now supports FreeBSD. There's clearly a very bright future ahead for the BSDs.
And it's clear now that Linux is on its way out. While Linux and Linux systems will still be around for some time, of course, everyone important who made Linux great in the past is fleeing from it. We're moving to BSD, because unlike the Linux community, the BSD community does things right. Something like systemd would never be taken seriously by them.
Yes, just go to the costume shop and buy one of everything. Put them all on.
Then since you won't be able to move, you can get your friends to roll you to the party so you can sit like a lump in the corner leaving everyone too confused and astonished to actually party.
I asked a few months back now, about the possibility of BSD on Digital Ocean due to all of the SystemD shenanigans of late. Got an email notification today that FreeBSD droplets are now available on Digital Ocean. It will be interesting to see if other VPS/Linux providers follow suit.
CB.
Have you tried to run Debian 8 without systemd? Systemd-less laptop is not just usable anymore at least on XFCE; usb automount and anything related to gvfs is gone, laptop special keys (backlight, volume) do not work, etc.
> Why do you care how other people build their Linux systems?
I don't. If Poettering and company had simply forked GNOME Lenna-X off of GNU Linu-X, there wouldn't be all this complaining. The problem is that Poettering and company have hijacked mainstream linux that almost all linux users use and changed it into something unrecognizable. udev is now built into systemd. The "udev install process" on Gentoo consists of building systemd, but only installing the udev portion. That's why the eudev fork. And some people are running with busybox/mdev in place of udev.
Then there's also dbus, which is being rammed into the kernel. Gnumeric was a great spreadsheet a couple of years ago. But now it's picking up GNOME dependancies all over the place, including dbus. And Skype now requires PulseAudio, another piece of crud from Lennart.
I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user
Where do you get that idea? There's no IP forwarding and masquerading in the init process. That all happens in the networkd process.
but even Microsoft managed to avoid building a console, web server, and QR code server into its init system.
Actually, when it comes to consoles... they kinda did.
Consoles in Windows run as part of the Client/Server Runtime Subsystem, which isn't exactly equivalent to init but kind of is. Killing CSRSS causes a BSOD as it's considered that critical to Windows. (Sort of, apparently it's not a "real" BSOD. Do not ask me what that means, I don't know.)
This was the reason that the Windows console didn't support themes (like the XP theme or the Aero theme) until Windows 7 - it was too tightly coupled to the core OS and Microsoft didn't want to introduce security risks via themes.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
/vmlinuz /boot/bzImage /sbin/systemd /usr/bin/emacs -> /sbin/systemd
You think I'm kidding... Here, in Lennart's own words:
http://0pointer.net/blog/revis...
The viola will depend on PulseAudio so you'll have to include that too.
SystemD is not replacing iptables, all they have done is integrate with iptables. Systemd's approach to configuring init "scripts" is superior (no really, it is) but it means that you can't just issue a straight "iptables -t nat..." command and instead have to call it via IPForwarding=yes and IPMasquerade=yes - unless of course you want to start a script with a unit file but then are you sure that iptables is up? Is the filesystem for the script up?
I don't know why I even bother reading the Slashdot comments about SystemD as they always lack critical thinking and instead prefer to cite hyperbole and FUD.
It annoys me that someone like Poettering, who only had PulseAudio come into use because of the ability distributions had to easily change core operating system components (and wouldn't have had the existing audio-subsystem been entrenched), would then proceed to develop something specifically intended to lock down its own existence and prevent its replacement by something else. It's hypocritical.
While I totally understand why he did it -- nobody wants to put a great amount of time into something only to have it superseded -- it flies in the face of open source in general, where you contribute to an evolving 'thing', and that while your specific contribution may not exist in the future, you can be happy that you took part in the evolution of the whole, and not feel the need to stamp your face on it for perpetuity.
It also sets a dangerous precedent. What's going to be locked down next, in the name of stability, or speed, or whatever else (when it's really about someone trying to 'make their mark'?) Do we lock down the file system? Only one file system for Linux, full stop? Do we lock down the network transports? The window manager? The terminal? The command-line applications?
Then what? Do we then create a global committee, made up of people who maintain the existing components (of course), to make decisions about those components and whatever's left into the future?
I mean, yes, I agree in that case something else will surely (and quickly) rise in Linux's place (I mean, who wants to put in the time to help projects who only exist to serve their creator's vanity) but it seems a shame that Linux should end this way.
You might want to read this post from a few years ago when the GNOME and GTK 3.x were replacing thir 2.x branches. Of particular interest is the quotes of Allan Day (GNOME dev and RedHat employee):
So not only is this about enforcing a monoculture, the reason to enforce a monoculture is because the desktop isn't about getting work done. No, the desktop - according to GNOME - is for branding/advertizing.
*sigh*
While we're on the subject, I recommend everybody read this post by the same author. It's speculative, but it does explain a lot of what has been happening to linux over the last few years... and how it may fit into the large picture.
Ce n'est pas une signature automatique.
Systemd's occasional (read: frequent in one of my pcs) failure to shutdown is how I found out that the devs had decided that sysreq was too dangerous for the users to have and had to be disabled.
So I was stuck with a system waiting forever for something to shutdown, and without being able to use sysreq to kill all the processes and unmount file systems safely. Of course, the only way out was a hardware reset, with the subsequent log corruption that let me with no hints on why systemd would not allow my pc to shutdown. Well, at least it got me moving to evaluate the still rational linux distributions out there, as well as the *BSDs, something I had been procrastinating for a few months.
Thats odd, because my system which only has ALSA allows hot plugging of headsets no problem.
1. "What the hell is with these new commands? Great, now I have to learn a whole new way of administration cause people had to change something that was never broken."
2. "Where's all the init files? How am I supposed to configure anything? I don't have time for this..."
3. "Everything is done with service descriptors? Okay..."
4. "So wait, I no longer have to write massive shell scripts that manage the entire process lifecycle, or scour google in the hope that someone else has already written said script so I don't have to?"
5. "Wow, I never realized how much I hated dealing with init scripts until I didn't have to anymore. This is SO much cleaner!"
6. "Whoa, I can monitor and control entire *heirarchies* of dependant services from one command? That's pretty damn slick..."
I still don't completely understand systemd, but now that I'm getting a handle on it, I find it conceptually and functionally cleaner, and more rigorous than the old init system. The downsides are that it's new and therefore has a learning curve, and that it blackboxes the actual service controller which is going to piss off anyone with an ounce of control-freakery in them.
First, again, Im not talking about dosshell. I'm referring to the preemptive version of dos that had a limited release years before that, and was promptly buried - so yes, you NEED to follow the link instead of basing it on wrong assumptions. You do NOT "know this stuff cold." I was surprised myself - learn something new every day. And yes, I lived it at that time as well as for a decade before that. So tear it up if you can.
And no, tsrs don't work via timeslicing. They work by an interrupt taking control of program flow to, for example, print a line, then restoring the normal program flow. That is not time-slicing, which is using a task scheduler to divvy up slices of time driven by the timer interrupt. I wrote tsrs as practical jokes. There was no timer tick involved.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Post below explains it well:
From "SystemD Abomination"
Subject Vested interest in control. RedHat and SystemD
Date Mon, 17 Nov 2014 04:40:08 +0100
by beaverdownunder:
It should be obvious to anyone that RedHat has a vested interest in making the vast majority of Linux distributions dependent on technology it controls. Linux is its bread-and-butter.
It appears RedHat has realised that, through systemd, it can readily provide preferential support for its own projects, and place roadblocks up for projects it does not control, thus extending its influence broadly and quickly. By using tenuous dependencies amongst its own projects it can speed adoption even faster.
Once it has significant influence, and the maintainers of competing projects have drifted away either out of frustration or because they are starved of oxygen, RedHat knows that they can effectively take Linux closed-source by restricting access to documentation and fighting changes that are not in their own best interests.
At this point, they can market themselves as the only rational choice for corporate Linux support -- and this would be perfectly reasonable because they would have effective control of the ecosystem.
Linux (as in a full OS implementation) is an extremely complex beast and you can't just "fork it" and start your own 'distro' from scratch anymore -- you would have to leverage a small army to do it, then keep that army to maintain it. It's just not practical.
At the same time, Linux has matured to the point of attaining some measure of corporate credibility, and from RedHat's point of view, it no longer needs its 'open source' roots to remain viable. RedHat also, understandably, fears potential competition.
Through systemd and subsequent takeovers of other ecosystem components, RedHat can leverage its own position while stifling potential competition -- this is a best-case scenario for any corporation. It will have an advantage in the marketplace, potential customers will recognise that advantage, and buy its products and support contracts.
I hope you can understand why many see this as an extremely compelling case. Arguing that RedHat has 'ethics' and would 'never do such a thing' is immature and silly -- RedHat is a corporation, it exists to profit from its opportunities, just like any other company. To attempt to argue that it would not do so is contrary to what we can assume is its default state.
It's no 'conspiracy theory' to assume that a corporation will behave like a corporation; arguing that it is just makes one look like a naive child. systemd is one large step toward RedHat gaining the ability to reap what it has sewn -- for its benefit and not necessarily ours.
Open/Read-Write/Close file I-O cycle for disk scattered .ini files
If your hard disk has a seek time of 8ms, then you will take, on average 4ms to read the file (ini files are usually small enough that reading one 4k block is sufficient). The time to parse it out is pretty much zero if you're doing it right. So the speed argument for using the registry isn't of any value. You won't even notice.
The recovery tools being on a separate partition does NOT help when you lose the drive, which, in my experience, is the only reason to do a system restore/reinstall (gone through about 24 drives over the years at home, plus a bunch at work). Having to reinstall both the os and go through the install routine for each program is a lot more tedious than just copying a directory with the app, data, and ini file. So on this, the registry totally loses.
So the registry doesn't help with backing up and restoring programs - it's a hindrance.
the fact text reads slower than binary storage (due to a larger and more complex structure in text)
Wow, just wow. You obviously haven't done much (if any) low-level programming. There is NO reason to open any file in "text mode" (which is a Windows quirk), which is slower and makes the file less transportable to other platforms. And the structure of an ini file is very simple. And if you don't like it, you're free to implement your own. Just load the whole file into a buffer in binary mode. You can even do it as a fixed-record-length store, in alphabetical order, and use bsearch() . My tests doing this show that you can do 100,000 key searches in a 1 meg buffer per second on a single-core cpu. I doubt anyone's going to have a 1 meg ini file, or 100,000 keys in it.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.