Slashdot Mirror


Removing Libsystemd0 From a Live-running Debian System

lkcl writes The introduction of systemd has unilaterally created a polarization of the GNU/Linux community that is remarkably similar to the monopolistic power position wielded by Microsoft in the late 1990s. Choices were stark: use Windows (with SMB/CIFS Services), or use UNIX (with NFS and NIS). Only the introduction of fully-compatible reverse-engineered NT Domains services corrected the situation. Instructions on how to remove systemd include dire warnings that "all dependent packages will be removed", rendering a normal Debian Desktop system flat-out impossible to achieve. It was therefore necessary to demonstrate that it is actually possible to run a Debian Desktop GUI system (albeit an unusual one: fvwm) with libsystemd0 removed. The reason for doing so: it doesn't matter how good systemd is believed to be or in fact actually is: the reason for removing it is, apart from the alarm at how extensive systemd is becoming (including interfering with firewall rules), it's the way that it's been introduced in a blatantly cavalier fashion as a polarized all-or-nothing option, forcing people to consider abandoning the GNU/Linux of their choice and to seriously consider using FreeBSD or any other distro that properly respects the Software Freedom principle of the right to choose what software to run. We aren't all "good at coding", or paid to work on Software Libre: that means that those people who are need to be much more responsible, and to start — finally — to listen to what people are saying. Developing a thick skin is a good way to abdicate responsibility and, as a result, place people into untenable positions.

12 of 755 comments (clear)

  1. Pointless by solidraven · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While it all sounds nice, you do realize 99.99% of the population just sort of wants their computer to work. We don't strictly care too much about your love/despise of some piece of software you didn't pay a dime for, didn't invest any time in writing, and then whine about being used/write love stories to. This sort of behaviour is exactly why projects like a Linux distro, or god forbid GNU/Hurd, never make it to mainstream software. I've said this before, and I'll say it again. If you want the Linux eco-system to be accepted start by getting rid of Stallman, write some damned drivers, make an easy to use system that doesn't require 5 hours of Googling on how to get a laptop soundcard to work. If you invested half the energy you folks use for whining about systemd into actually making an alternative available you might actually get something done.

    1. Re:Pointless by grcumb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The systemd complainers are just a vocal minority. If they were representative of a large fraction of Linux users, then we would see several prominent distros not using systemd or making non-systemd versions.

      You need to explain your reasoning here. You seem to think that minorities don't determine the outcome when it comes to designing FOSS. But the Freedom of FOSS is not populism. It never has been. It has always been the case that a vanishingly small minority of developers have decided the fate of thousands—and more recently, millions—of users.

      It's a fact that Poeterring, Sievers and co. represent a tiny minority of Linux developers. Over 90% of the systemd code base has been written by 10 or so people. The groups that decided to include systemd in Debian and RedHat are also very small, and while Debian's is nominally consultative, they declined to send this particular decision to a popular vote.

      So why do you think that numbers suddenly matter?

      That's why the anti-systemd people are so pissed off: everyone else is just ignoring them.

      It's not that people are being ignored. It's that 20+ years of historical evidence is being cast aside.

      Make no mistake: What we're talking about here is a fundamental change in our approach to systems software. The distros have been dragged along for numerous reasons, some of them technical, some of them ideological. But to pretend that the demographic that is being left behind is of no consequence is disingenuous arrogance at best.

      This is Linux: if they don't like it, they can just fork an existing distro, but do you see any of them doing that? Nope.

      You know, I've done that before. I've worked for a company that developed a Linux distro purpose-built for people who couldn't manage systems for themselves. I still write the bits and pieces that I need, when I need to.

      I'm not philosophically opposed to what you're suggesting here. I am incensed, though, that it should be necessary. As someone who so clearly doesn't understand the first thing about how the FOSS ecosystem works, you should have a care before you begin discarding the viewpoints of those who have gone before you, and you should think twice before presuming to suggest what's good for us.

      HTH HAND

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    2. Re: Pointless by Billly+Gates · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You mean how Sun, Apple, and Ubuntu did not leave init behind years ago

    3. Re:Pointless by davydagger · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you want the Linux eco-system to be accepted start by getting rid of Stallman

      cold day in hell. To be honest, while I would like linux to be accepted. I'm not getting rid of Stallman, because if we start getting rid of people like him, the GNU/Linux community will just become more like the people we joined this community to get away from.

      More imporant than getting everyone to use Linux, is getting everyone to change how they view the world. Stallman is a smart man, hes actually well spoken, and he digs in and sticks by his ethics, instead of taking a half-assed sleazy way out. He inspires confedence as a voice I can trust to be consistant and ethical, even when no one else is, and doesn't bow to pressure, or sell out core principles.

      If we want to be more like everyone else, and start rejecting people for being ugly, and start accepting people who will sell us a bill of goods, and then find someway to fuck us over first possible chance, its not worth the added user base.

      Also, Free software survives on community effort. Bringing in a bunch of hipsters, will simply bring in hoardes of people who do not contribute, but make demands, sometimes unreasonable, and might try and cause divisions, making work harder. Again, you'll talk about kicking contributers out, to make room for non-contributors.

      write some damned drivers, make an easy to use system that doesn't require 5 hours of Googling on how to get a laptop soundcard to work.

      OK, now you're trolling, linux has had better driver availability than basicly anyone else for the last 5 years. Your simply repeating problems people had pre-kernel 3, which are virtually unheard of.

      I started running Linux because all my drivers just worked, as opposed to running XP at the time, where finding the right drivers was a fucking pain. Also, installing extra drivers on Ubuntu is easy, installing them on windows is hard, and installing them on Macs doesn't happen, at all.

      Oh yeah, and all the codecs "just worked" too, I just clicked a box saying I didn't give fuck all about licensing. Now try doing that in windows, or even mac.

      Or mabey that Ubuntu was the first desktop that had an App store on the desktop, even before apple. Oh, and it worked.

      Or try installing windows on box vs mint/ubuntu/trisquel. Tell me what is easier.

      Are your initials ESR?

    4. Re:Pointless by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Pretty much the systemd advocates are running around pissing on everything in the store all the while yelling about how if you don't like piss you should buy simething that hasn't been pissed on. Of course if they see you head for a shelf, they'll do their best to run and piss on it before you get there.

    5. Re:Pointless by medlefsen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That article you linked is just awful. "Dear Leader Lennart Poettering"? I've been using systemd on Arch for years now, and very happy with the switched as it has a lot of nice features. I've been trying to follow the controversy (which completely surprised me when I first encountered it) but I still can't figure out what the big deal is.

      Many of the arguments seem just flat out wrong. Systemd doesn't pull everything into pid 0, and it isn't being "forced" down anybody's throat. All of the various distributions are choosing to use it or not via their normal decision making processes. People keep talking about politics, and maybe I'm just missing it, but the only politics I'm seeing are from people like you who use highly charged, emotional language (and liken "opponents" to mass murderers) when talking about what init system to use.

      The rest of the arguments I'm seeing, like the one in the link you posted, just seem like the most inane things to fly into such a rage about. So the systemd author thinks it's good to have a collection of systems libraries and tools that are uniform and high quality. That makes him a fascist liar? Somehow systemd is supposed to be anti-Unix or anti-Linux or something. I'm not sure how that makes sense. All of the other UNIX's I can think of do essentially the same thing (and more) and the idea that Linux is about small independent projects is odd given that Linux itself is a gigantic (and still growing) monolithic kernel, as opposed to Windows and Mac which are both hybrid Micro-kernels. Even more, most of the base userland for most Linux distributions is GNU, which is also a top-down managed project that aims for uniformity and high quality.

      Literally the only argument I've seen that is even close to reasonable is that some people like text logs and journald is a binary log format, and fixing that requires adding one line to a config file.

      Please, someone explain this to me.

  2. Give it a rest by MSG · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We aren't all "good at coding," but we know what init system we want.

    We aren't all "doctors," but we know we don't want vaccines.

    We aren't all "scientists," but we know global warming is a hoax.

    I cannot be the only one sick of seeing this crap posted over and over. systemd is being implemented in distributions because a) it is good and b) the people making that decision are the ones qualified to do so.

  3. Re:Pulseaudio misconceptions by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Networked sound playing is just an incident of pulseaudio being a sound router. It's a nice feature, but that's not what pulseaudio was basically written for.

    That's unfortunate, because that's the only thing it actually provides that we didn't have before.

    lots of headphones/microphones now are USB. They are not another channel on the same soundcard, they are a completely different sound driver. Switching when pluging a headset is not something which is trivially done in ALSA without special support of software.

    Another thing which can be done with a small shell script.

    bluetooth, which is VERY common on portable devices (but also might be usefull on dekstops) isn't even a kernel driver.

    But BlueZ does provide an ALSA driver.

    It has much more in common with networked sound than with ALSA.

    Except, you know, that the sound comes through an ALSA driver.

    recording the output of another program becomes much more trivial if there's a sound router handling the redirection, instead of needing some special support in software.

    Special support in software? what do you think pulseaudio is?

    Pulseaudio doesn't require any special support. It can present an ALSA target to any ALSA-enabled software.

    When that works.

    Why the fuck do you want to round a *sound mixer* inside your *kernel space*

    That's OK, there is userspace dmix for the paranoid. But you avoid a context switch by having your sound mixer inside your kernel space. However, if you want to use a floating point mixer, it has to be userspace anyway because politics.

    And you're still free to disable pulseaudio and use dmix instead, if you want.

    Some applications are just using pulseaudio directly for audio now.

    Instead of being vulgar, maybe you should ask yourself why so many distributions are switching to systemd.

    Because upstream software requires it, for poor reasons.

    Also please try to avoid making confusion between the actual piece of code that runs as PID 1 (which is indeed confusingly called "systemd") and all the other pieces of code that add the functionnality mentionned in all systemd articles (these pieces of code are all members of a project which is also called by the same name "systemd", but all pieces of code are completely different deamons like "networkd", "journald", etc.).

    No. I can't ignore the various pieces which are required. I can ignore the non-required bits, though.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  4. Re:meanwhile... by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    But in practice it is non-viable as a replacement for all systemd is doing today as the developers on it admit

    There's no need for it to do all that systemd is doing today. That in fact is much of what is wrong with systemd.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  5. Re:Why are distros moving to systemd? by thegarbz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ubuntu wasn't a big enough player? That's news to me.

    The reality is that upstart solved problems that systemd did too, then Ubuntu not being of the NIH RedHat type said hey, no need to continue to pour effort into our own init system, we could just switch to another.

    The thing about forks is they are often created as a need to address something which does not exist. This is why I am watching this entire debacle with a very keen eye. Base on the talk on online forums one of the following 3 will happen:

    1. Linux user base will decimate in favour of BSD.
    2. Devuan will become a leading distribution and will quickly find it's way onto every server in the world as admins refuse to work with systemd.
    3. Life will go on because people don't put their money where their mouth is, and systemd isn't quite bad enough for people to actually start supporting alternatives instead dedicating all their energy to complaining on the internet.

    To anyone who hates systemd, donate to an alternative or dedicate some programming time, or package management, or any one of the other many things that go into maintaining a fork.

  6. Re:Pulseaudio misconceptions by thegarbz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Another thing which can be done with a small shell script.

    Oh please stop. I can't read much further than this. There were many use cases for linux audio which were either completely absent or plainly broken before Pulseaudio matured (I won't say before it came out, because frankly it was broken when Pulseaudio came out too).

    If you think supporting the range of various event driven realtime changes to the sound destination (i.e. I did something as mind bogglingly complicated as plugging in my headphones while watching a movie) then I'm sure there wouldn't have been an endless list of complaints about the state of linux sound. As far as a general user was concerned, sound was effectively broken. But it's good to know you could write a shell script to fix everything. (I won't draw a comparison to sysvinit here, woopse too late).

    If the problems were as easily solved as you claim the distros would have done it years ago. Except they didn't and were so very keen to migrate to something which did have this functionality that they released Pulseaudio waaaaay before it was ready for primetime (happy to draw a systemd comparison here).

    But feel free to keep wearing your rose coloured glasses as you lament about why we have the things we do know.

  7. Re:meanwhile... by UberLord · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You're right, OpenRC cannot keep up because it's not a DHCP client, nor a binary system logger, nor any of the other things systemd has now assimilated.
    It's just an piece of software which starts the system in a deterministic fashion using existing software that's been very well tested, such as sysvinit on Linux the respective BSD init on the BSDs.

    OpenRC is just an init system, it will never be anything more than that. And why should it be? There are much better system loggers and network management tools out there than what systemd offers.