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.

502 of 755 comments (clear)

  1. meanwhile... by steak · · Score: 5, Funny

    slackware users are saying "what's all this then?"

    1. Re:meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      slackware users are saying "what's all this then?"

      So are Gentoo users who chose OpenRC. Even if systemd was the best init system ever, and that's quite debatable, I still don't like the way it's being rammed down our throats. I for one reject Poettering.

      I didn't like (and never used) Pulseaudio either. If I wanted to play sound over a network I'd share my media directory. Then I enjoy the ability to also share all of my media (videos, ebooks, etc) in a completely transparent application-agnostic manner. What I wouldn't do is run an unnecessary audio layer requiring application support - and that can do nothing else - in the form of a sound daemon I never wanted and didn't ask for. Software mixing you say? It's called dmix.

      I moved away from Windows and towards open source years ago in order to have choice. I will have that choice whether or not most major distributions gargle the Poettering cock. If Gentoo ever caves in (unlikely but possible), I plan to move to OpenBSD to replace my Gentoo Hardened server and maybe FreeBSD to replace my workstation. The Unix Philosophy has withstood the test of time and I believe in it. I'm sure the kool-aid is quite tasty, but no thanks, I'll pass.

    2. Re:meanwhile... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Funny

      So are Gentoo users who chose OpenRC.

      Assuming it ever finished compiling...

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    3. Re:meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Sure, I can take a joke, but are you still running on a 486 with 4 megs of RAM over there? Compiling using portage these days is so easy and unobtrusive that you almost might as well do it just to watch the "defrag" like stream of compiling messages. And there are binary versions already in portage of the few big monolithic packages that nobody would ever *want* to compile on their own.

    4. Re:meanwhile... by jbolden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The funny thing is the people working on OpenRC threw in the towel over a year ago. They can't keep up. OpenRC was a good idea, it truly was init.d version 3.0. But in practice it is non-viable as a replacement for all systemd is doing today as the developers on it admit. Gentoo will be able to hold out a long time because of the nature of the distribution but I suspect that within 2-3 years Gentoo will be overwhelmingly systemd.

    5. Re:meanwhile... by Truekaiser · · Score: 2

      I used to hate pulseaudio too, until i was forced to use it to get the games i was buying off of steam to have sound.
      Then I found out that if you disable or ignore the network sound feature it mainly boots linux into the modern sound land windows has been since vista. per application volume and speaker configs. per application outputs and recording inputs. it just works.

    6. 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.'"
    7. Re:meanwhile... by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      I thought the whole point was that SystemD was doing too much as it was. The main objection I have heard is that it has intruded into so many places it is not needed or wanted.

    8. Re:meanwhile... by invictusvoyd · · Score: 1

      If Gentoo ever caves in (unlikely but possible), I plan to move to OpenBSD to replace my Gentoo Hardened server and maybe FreeBSD to replace my workstation.

      I respect your determination and I've been considering migrating to gentoo these days but want to avoid the "pain" of another possible future migration (BSD's) Is there any certainlity about the future "sanity" of gentoo?

    9. Re:meanwhile... by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Call me a tinfoil hatter if you want (just as anybody who said "they are monitoring our calls!" before Manning) but am I the only one that finds it funny that after Snowden lets out all the 3 letter agencies best spy tricks out of the blue a guy employed by Red Hat, who makes more than 85% of their money from 3 letter agencies, suddenly decides out of the blue "This crucial part MUST be replaced by this big creeping mess that will touch more and more systems!" and just as suddenly every.single.major.distro. just instantly jumps on this bandwagon even if it means telling their own users to fuck off? Even distros that are normally positively glacial about major changes like Debian? Doesn't that strike anybody else as odd?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    10. Re:meanwhile... by inasity_rules · · Score: 1

      The reason I don't run Gentoo is I would *want* to compile... *everything*... I have a problem...

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
    11. Re:meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > The funny thing is the people working on OpenRC threw in the towel over a year ago.

      Are you *sure* about this?

      http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:OpenRC shows a modification date of 2015-01-24

      http://packages.gentoo.org/package/sys-apps/openrc shows that OpenRC had a stable release on 2015-02-05. (Indeed, my amd64 server is running 0.13.9, built on that date.)

      I would point you to recent OpenRC commit history, but g.o.gentoo.org is terribly slow at the moment, and the github repo doesn't seem to be all that official.

    12. Re:meanwhile... by gweihir · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Same here. As I posted in the last systemd-related story (slightly edited):

      At this time I see:
      - No technical merits of systemd that are important or critical, just some convenience issues
      - Systemd is in hurried development, a stable feature set is nowhere in sight
      - The development leads are known incompetents with inflated egos and no communication skills
      - There are a number of design decisions that are very, very bad for security and stability

      At the same time I see:
      - Systemd is pushed strongly with emotional (not factual) arguments
          This is a coordinated and targeted propaganda campaign. A campaign focused on technical merits is not even attempted seriously.
      - Systemd opponents are ridiculed, insulted and their arguments are not taken seriously
      - Systemd is getting very hard to avoid

      I can only deduce that there _must_ be one of or a combination of the following going on:
      - Linux was getting too hard to hack and the intelligence community is pushing for systemd to fix that
      - Linux did not generate enough support revenue Red Hat and this is intended to fix that by decreasing reliability
      - Red Hat wants total control over Linux and systemd is their attempt to establish that

      So if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, the most probable explanation is that it is a duck and hence I conclude that something nefarious is going on and the last three items are the most likely candidates IMO. I cannot believe that two known incompetent hacks with bad personalities can screw over a whole large tech-savvy community all by themselves. They must have significant, coordinated help, with significant propaganda and manipulation experience. Whether it is military PsyOps or just commercial PR, the effects are the same. And they are massively negative and destructive for Linux and its community if not repelled decisively.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    13. 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.

    14. Re:meanwhile... by DUdsen · · Score: 1

      GNU HURD failed because they wanted to put all systemd wants to do under one committee had they not done so they might have shipped, early enough for the FSF to remain relevant

      I doubt well ever see systemd with a busybox environment so by making everything in mainline a sub feature of system mainline will no longer be able to share resources with the cash rich embedded world, custom server farms might even end up diverging so much from the mainline being pushed by redhat, suse and canonical that they too stop contribution code into systemd compatible components.It's what you get when you fal into the trap of wanting to manage every component you use under one umbrella.

      This is essentially what happened to the BSD world, at one point all of the fringes, which is where the development cash tend to be, decided not to deal with the committee in charge and left for the anarchic world of linux.

      It#s also interesting that systemd and gnome camps are 110% aligned and tend to be the people who want to put a central committee back in charge just like in the old HURD/BSD days, where as the people and organization who grew in the chaos that is linux tend to grumble about the throwback to old style waterfall design by comittee models of opensource.

    15. Re:meanwhile... by gnupun · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Red Hat, who makes more than 85% of their money from 3 letter agencies, suddenly decides out of the blue "This crucial part MUST be replaced by this big creeping mess that will touch more and more systems!"

      This systemd pdf article is pretty unremarkable except for what is written in big font in the 2nd page:

      Another aspect of systemd is that it collects all output from processes that it starts.

      Since systemd launches all processes, it can easily spy on all the process outputs and transmit that to whichever TLA it wants. This is a major spying attack.

    16. Re:meanwhile... by l_bratch · · Score: 1

      I've been running Gentoo since 2005, and my main desktop (which I'm using right now, incidentally) has had the same Gentoo install since 2006. I only got rid of my original 2005 install because I switched architecture (x86 -> x86_64).

      If it's sane enough for me to keep it running and fully up to date for nine years without much effort, it must be pretty sane. I'd trust it!

    17. Re:meanwhile... by invictusvoyd · · Score: 1

      Nine years is quite reassuring . I'm intending to build gentoo on an intel atom (dual core @1.6 ghz each ) netbook with 512 MB RAM . Will the compile kill my hardware ? with both cores firing at 100% for half an hour, the core temps frequently go above 65 deg C .

    18. Re:meanwhile... by l_bratch · · Score: 1

      It won't kill your hardware (I've compiled it on significantly less suitable machines), but it will take a fair while (a number of hours) on a machine of that power.

      There's a lot of learning to be done with Gentoo, but once you get it, I think you'll appreciate it considerably.

      (Nothing is needlessly complicated or arcane, but it can be rather different to somebody used to most popular distros.)

    19. Re:meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The funny thing is the people working on OpenRC threw in the towel over a year ago.

      I don't see any references either on Wikipedia or the official OpenRC web page that the people working on it threw in the towel over a year ago. Got any reference for this news?

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

      Of course a lean and transparent project is not doing everything that the kitchen sink blob is doing. If it was, it would not be hailed as the future of non-Redhat-derivative distrtibutions, but just another kitchen sink like upstart, launchd and whatever the Windows boot thing is called.

    20. Re:meanwhile... by hxnwix · · Score: 1

      "Linux audio was a joke before Poettring fixed it."

      Wow. Talk about NO.

    21. Re:meanwhile... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Then I found out that if you disable or ignore the network sound feature it mainly boots linux into the modern sound land windows has been since vista. per application volume and speaker configs. per application outputs and recording inputs. it just works.

      It does now. But for most of the years of its existence, it was a problem-causer at least as much as a problem-solver. Now we're going to have that all over again with systemd?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    22. Re:meanwhile... by Mr.+Droopy+Drawers · · Score: 1

      FYI... I'm running systemd in a busybox environment currently. Have been for the last 3 years now.

      Not seeing what the big fuss is. The dependency model that systemd enforces helps with speeding startup of embedded systems. I like it more than the hacked init.d scripts we had been using. We're not using near 50% what systemd can do. But, I see measurable value by going that direction.

      But, then again, I happen to like gnome compared to my other options out there. So, I guess I fit in the demographic you're railing about.

      As developers, we're looking for something that "just works". All of those hand-crafted scripts used by init.d doesn't address this.

      --

      To Copy from One is Plagiarism; To Copy from Many is Research.

    23. Re:meanwhile... by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      That's the only thing I can think of, too.

      Linux won, and 80% of everything runs Linux. 80% of internet servers. 85% of smartphones. My consumer router, NAS, and freaking surround receiver came with copies of the GPL because they run Linux kernels.

      The spooks already have back doors into windows and os x, no doubt. But you think they're just going to sit around and saw "awww shucks, guess we can't get into 80% of stuff..." Fuck no. If you can ask, ask. If you can buy, buy. If you can force, force. If you can't force...infiltrate and subvert, and that's what they're doing.

      Systemd is a plot to infiltrate and subvert the GNU/Linux ecosystem by the US government via the Red Hat corporation.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    24. Re:meanwhile... by DUdsen · · Score: 1

      FYI... I'm running systemd in a busybox environment currently. Have been for the last 3 years now.

      Not seeing what the big fuss is. The dependency model that systemd enforces helps with speeding startup of embedded systems. I like it more than the hacked init.d scripts we had been using. We're not using near 50% what systemd can do. But, I see measurable value by going that direction.

      But, then again, I happen to like gnome compared to my other options out there. So, I guess I fit in the demographic you're railing about.

      As developers, we're looking for something that "just works". All of those hand-crafted scripts used by init.d doesn't address this.

      I like the init part of systemd but all of the mess that gets bolted on because the team behind it dont want to write or deal with API's and 3rd party plugins is breaking stuff faster then they can fix it because the project management team forgot to limit the project scope to something they could manage. Systemd does not "just work" for the people whom sysV did not also "just work".

    25. Re:meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When they stop adding new, unneeded, and unwanted features?

    26. Re:meanwhile... by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Sure there is. If program X has 5 dependencies on systemd another init system is going to have to solve them. If Y has another 4 dependencies the replacement is going to have solve them. If X&Y together introduce cross dependencies then that solution for both them is going to need to handle cross dependencies. And that's the problem with replacing systemd.

    27. Re:meanwhile... by jbolden · · Score: 1

      You are a tinfoil hatter. Debian is moving at the same pace it has for similar changes driven from upstream. There just haven't been that many times when upstream and large groups of users disagreed lately. Moreover RedHat was 2 years ahead of Debian so your when is intermixed.

    28. Re:meanwhile... by jbolden · · Score: 1

      The why should it be is because systemd is a process manager not an init system. Initialization and shutdown are just two of the many states that systemd handles today and just two of the far greater number it will handle in the future. If you are going to offer OpenRC as a replacement for systemd then it has to do process management not just init management.

      OpenRC is a great replacement for initd but that's not the issue anymore.

    29. Re:meanwhile... by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Some embedded systems like the process management of systemd. For others it is too expensive. It is entirely possible, I'd say likely that a large subset of embedded Linux will break off to essentially become at the very least a majorly diverging forked OS. Embedded has always been a diverse ecosystem.

      As for a desire for organization yes. That's absolutely true. The systemd folks want to be kernel 2.0 and have a much more larger range of standard services across distributions and instances. Obviously RedHat would like to be that committee. There are other players like IBM, HP... that wouldn't mind being able to focus on higher parts of the stack and are happy to yield those issues to RedHat. So let's assume that's true...

    30. Re:meanwhile... by jbolden · · Score: 1

      I don't see any references either on Wikipedia or the official OpenRC web page that the people working on it threw in the towel over a year ago. Got any reference for this news?

      Not off the top of my head. do a search on consolekit OpenRC and the problems they were having. They hit compatibility problems before upstart did.

      As far as it being abandoned. You can go to Gentoo right now and see hard dependencies on systemd in unrelated packages.

    31. Re:meanwhile... by Celarent+Darii · · Score: 1

      The funny thing is the people working on OpenRC threw in the towel over a year ago.

      [Citation needed]

      OpenRC is very much an active project. The last commit was just a few days ago.

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

      The question is really the other way around - should systemd be doing all that it does and at the same time abandon POSIX compatibility.

      systemd is not even portable. That is the very antithesis of Unix.

    32. Re:meanwhile... by MoonSweep · · Score: 1

      Where are my mod points when I need them ?

    33. Re:meanwhile... by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Do a search on the threads related to consolekit on OpenRC. That was the breaking point. OpenRC will continue to advance as a replacement for initd it just won't be a replacement for systemd.

      The question is really the other way around - should systemd be doing all that it does and at the same time abandon POSIX compatibility.

      I think we need process management. Once you accept a process manager I think it should be doing a lot more and really be designed to work with an IaaS / PaaS solution.

      As for POSIX compatibility... POSIX was a solution to a world of lots of diverse big box Unixes to allow commercial software to support all of them. We have a mono culture on Unix now with Linux owning almost all of it, except for OSX (which has a cousin to systemd called launchd). So I'm not sure POSIX should exist and if does exist then I think Linux and OSX should be at the center of it with AIX, Solaris, other BSD... being peripheral. Things like support for Digital Unix and Xenix features can be dropped.

    34. Re:meanwhile... by Celarent+Darii · · Score: 1

      So I'm not sure POSIX should exist and if does exist then I think Linux and OSX should be at the center of it with AIX, Solaris, other BSD... being peripheral. Things like support for Digital Unix and Xenix features can be dropped.

      These kinds of statements are completely idiotic, and I dare say typical of the systemd fanclub.

      Please read on what POSIX is first. It is what guarantees that your software will be portable, which is a foundation upon which UNIX is built. In fact it is the portability of software that made UNIX possible and popular to begin with. It is the equivalent of the w3 standards committee for web design.

      You hate it when your web browser doesn't adhere to standards. Why should your software not adhere to standards? How do you think you can actually USE open source software on different operating systems? Making any key component of your operating system, especially something fundamental as an init system, against POSIX is completely insane. It will be the death of linux. It is equivalent to saying that your website 'works best with IE6' in the application realm. THIS IS A BAD THING, independently of the technical merits of systemd.

      For instance, to compile gnome now on OpenBSD you need to add an emulation layer for the systemd parts because systemd CANNOT BE PORTED to BSD. So now in order to compile any gnome application onto OpenBSD you need a whole emulation layer just because they broke POSIX by having systemd as a dependence.

      What you see in the browser area, where each webpage now needs to load a special javascript file in order to insure compatibility to all browsers, which is a nightmare for developers, is now being forced upon Linux.

      The thing is these problems were solved so many years ago, and now thanks to Red Hat and their incompetent engineers everything is going to be broke and incompatible. It is basically Red Hat making Linux theirs - not by stealing the code, but by making it useless to others.

    35. Re:meanwhile... by MechaStreisand · · Score: 1

      Lies and propaganda. You are trying to discourage people from trying out OpenRC on Gentoo to further advance the systemd monopoly, but your mistake is that OpenRC is alive and well.

      --
      Disclaimer: IANAL. This post is, however, legal advice, and creates an attorney-client relationship.
    36. Re:meanwhile... by jbolden · · Score: 1

      In fact it is the portability of software that made UNIX possible and popular to begin with.

      No it wasn't. What made UNIX popular was its ability to run on a variety of hardware and thus cut hardware costs, its ties to networking and its PC like boot and configurability. POSIX was a response to the popularity of the commercial Unixs. POSIX likely helped big box UNIX some but certainly it was far from definitive for UNIX's success. As demonstrated by the fact that the most popular UNIX by far, Linux, was not a member of the Open Group.

      Why should your software not adhere to standards?

      I don't have a problem with standards. I have a problem with a standard designed to solve problems that don't exist anymore. Bad standards are often worse than no standards.

      It is equivalent to saying that your website 'works best with IE6' in the application realm.

      I wasn't a big fan of IE based websites but had Microsoft been invested in the web and LAMP not existed... the web could have turned into an IE affair. Firefox's popularity was a response to Microsoft understanding that the migration to web was bad for them even if the migration was to IE. For them, better IE than Netscape but better Windows native client than IE.

      For instance, to compile gnome now on OpenBSD you need to add an emulation layer for the systemd parts because systemd CANNOT BE PORTED to BSD

      That's soft of correct. Something like systemd can be. I mean systemd itself came from launchd which is used by a BSD. There exists a systemd shim for BSD. But ultimately it is quite possible that most Linux software will require a substantial port to work under BSD, very similar to what exists for Windows and OSX.

      The thing is these problems were solved so many years ago, and now thanks to Red Hat and their incompetent engineers everything is going to be broke and incompatible.

      I think you may want to consider the distinction between
      a) disagrees with you on tradeoffs
      b) incompetent

    37. Re:meanwhile... by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Wow are you paranoid! "OpenRC was a good idea, it truly was init.d version 3.0" is my devious plot to discourage people from trying OpenRC?

      OpenRC is not keeping up with systemd. As a replacement for initd it is doing fine. That's just not terribly relevant long term because upstream is creating systemd dependencies. Whether a few thousand people do or do not use OpenRC doesn't change that.

    38. Re:meanwhile... by denydias · · Score: 1

      This is lennart at poettering.net himself announcing systemd 219, just yesterday:

      > http://lists.freedesktop.org/a...

      "Note that this version is not available in Fedora F22/F23 yet. The
      linker on ARM segfaults. Since the i386 and x86_64 versions built
      fine, I decided to release 219 anyway."

      By all means this corroborates all the points gweihir gave us above.

      Why in the hell should I be forced by any ditro maintainer out there to use a piece of software from a dev/pm that just "release anyway"?

    39. Re:meanwhile... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Nice find!

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    40. Re:meanwhile... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      This systemd pdf article is pretty unremarkable except for what is written in big font in the 2nd page:

      Another aspect of systemd is that it collects all output from processes that it starts.

      Since systemd launches all processes, it can easily spy on all the process outputs and transmit that to whichever TLA it wants. This is a major spying attack.

      systemd puts the stderr (and sometimes stdout) of processes it starts in the system journal. This is extremely useful (to the extent that various anti-systemd trolls around here are denying that it happens).

      If your journal is readable by the NSA you have bigger problems than systemd. If your various init started daemons are writing confidential information to stderr you have bigger problems than systemd.

      systemd does not "launch all processes". systemd only has access to the stderr/stdout of the processes it does launch.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    41. Re:meanwhile... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      I may be wrong, but I thought OpenRC was a replacement for sysvinit, not "initd" (whatever that is).

      (I.E. OpenRC replaces the horror that is /etc/rc?.d but still uses /sbin/init).

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    42. Re:meanwhile... by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Which to me seems to reinforce your idea that this is a military operation, as I find it REALLY hard to believe that a dev so flippant in his "I don't give a fuck!" attitude would just be embraced and given control of such a critical system without some big ass checks being passed, not to mention how quickly otherwise normally wise devs suddenly resort to name calling and character attacks when users point out what an a-hole this guy is, using his own posts no less.

      Maybe again its just me but the postings from groups like the Debian devs feel just like somebody is telling them "Look I know the guy is a giant ass, we do not care just COVER FOR HIM and get this shit rammed through or no big checks for you, understand?" because its all hamfisted appeals to emotion and name calling, whereas with other debates they tended to go straight to technical merits without going emotional all over the place.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    43. Re:meanwhile... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      That is my take as well. The very type of exchanges over systemd ("discussion" does not fit) is very unusual and strongly dumbed down and emotionalized on the proponent's side. It repeats the same pseudo-statements over and over. This stinks of a PsyOps campaign, with quite a few "useful idiots" siding with it, as the given "arguments" seem to make sense on the surface. The opposing side is pretty much as usual, with better and worse arguments, but trying to discuss technical merit and its absence, not some emotional garbage that has no place in such a discussion.

      My guess would be that the distributions themselves were infiltrated by active and former Red Hat people and some others that could be convinced, bought or coerced. Debian certainly fell that way. The psychological campaign just serves as support and unfortunately many technical people are really easy to manipulate on this emotional level. On the other hand, quite a few react by strongly pushing back, which is what we are seeing with systemd. Fortunately, this means the whole operation is a big train-wreck as it was really incompetently implemented. It will still do a lot of damage before the community recovers and it may at least partially reach its goal nonetheless.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    44. Re:meanwhile... by t_hunger · · Score: 1

      Please read on what POSIX is first. It is what guarantees that your software will be portable, which is a foundation upon which UNIX is built.

      Yes, POSIX is important. But as with any standard it defines the least common denominator. Couple that with the fact that POSIX was not updated in years and you have to address the least common denominator from more that 5 years ago (I think even longer...). That is an eternity in IT. A standard is fine, but it should not stop you from playing to your strength.

      Systemd argues that an init system is closely related to the Kernel and should make all the fancy kernel features available to user space. There is enough precedence for this in commercial unix variants by the way: Many come with init systems tailored to their specific strength of their kernels. I do not see that as a bad thing. So far I am not aware of anybody in the BSD camp even wanting to port systemd. At least the FreeBSD developers said they wanted a modern init system, too, but they are going for something that plays to the strength of their own kernel. So why should systemd bother about being portable to OSes that want to come up with their own solution?

      That BSDs require some compatibility layer is nothing new, either. There is support for Linux style /proc and IIRC even /sys in some of the BSDs! DBus, polkit and whatnot were ported over to the BSDs, too. So how is systemd any different than those projects? You will need to implement a couple of DBus interfaces and make sure those will do the right thing. Nothing new, nothing special.

      There are projects on the BSDs as well, that are non-portable: LibreSSL and openSSH from openBSD spring to mind here. Those use interfaces from the BSD kernel. There a separate porting projects that bring those code bases over to Linux. They actually introduced a new kernel API due to libreSSL into the Linux kernel.

      I see nothing bad in targetting specific platforms whatsoever. Yes, I do think POSIX is important: If you can do something with POSIX, then use that. If not, then use something else. And when in doubt target one platform and let people that care for other platforms port the stuff if they care.

      --
      Regards, Tobias
    45. Re:meanwhile... by jbolden · · Score: 1

      It is. That was sloppy on part I was mainly making the point that systemd does quite a bit more than initialize and shutdown.

          At least on Gentoo OpenRC uses the /etc/init.d directories.

    46. Re:meanwhile... by ScRoNdO · · Score: 1

      Slashdot needs urgently a "Crackpot" moderation option

  2. Choice is good. by ponos · · Score: 2

    I think it is rather obvious that there should be a way to have more options. Competition is good, choice is good. Can't someone fork a version without systemd? Also, note that other distribution, like Slackware, don't depend on systemd, but the pressure is mounting.

    1. Re:Choice is good. by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Can't someone fork a version without systemd?

      I agree, choice IS good. However, what I'm seeing so far is a bunch of vocal whiners on Slashdot bitching about systemd, and no one actually stepping up to make a distro that doesn't use it. So what it amounts to is a few loudmouths telling distro maintainers they're wrong, even though the loudmouths don't want to actually do any work on distros themselves.

    2. Re:Choice is good. by solidraven · · Score: 1, Funny

      That sounds like a steep request, it would require a skill other than whining about systemd and the position of female employees in technology companies though.

    3. Re:Choice is good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, if *all* you see are "a bunch of vocal whiners on Slashdot bitching about systemd", then you have a severe problem.

      However, the fact that systemd comes with the "USE US OR FAIL!" dire warning (cf "if you don't use Windows, you can't use our ISP") and appears entirely engineered to intefere with everything on a Linux system, no matter how divorced from SETTING UP THE OS it is indicates that the proponents of systemd have one of two aims:

      Give up on a sustainable Free Software OS.

      Make systemd a required choice and silence all other options.

      Given you only want to see complains as "whining" this indicates you do not want a free system. Pretending any discord against systemd must be illogic and panic is just your childish method for not having to argue against the problems highlighted. cf "you can't understand women's issues because you're a man".

    4. Re:Choice is good. by kthreadd · · Score: 1

      I think it is rather obvious that there should be a way to have more options. Competition is good, choice is good. Can't someone fork a version without systemd? Also, note that other distribution, like Slackware, don't depend on systemd, but the pressure is mounting.

      It's important to realize that this article is not about systemd, it's about libsystemd which is not systemd. It's a library that is used as an interface to systemd, and Debian has built some of it's packages to depend on it. Note that having libsystemd installed in no ways means that you have systemd installed. It's just a library that won't do anything if systemd itself is not installed.

    5. Re:Choice is good. by sjames · · Score: 2

      Perhaps if you read a news site like slashdot, for example, you would have seen a few articles about people putting such a distro together. You might have even gone the extra mile and subscribed to their mailing list where you would see actual progress being made.

      Nah, it's much easier to just bitch about people who didn't drink your cool aid on slash....HEY! Wait a minute!

      I guess you just delete anything from memory that might keep you from dumping on people!

    6. Re:Choice is good. by kthreadd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      However, the fact that systemd comes with the "USE US OR FAIL!" dire warning (cf "if you don't use Windows, you can't use our ISP") and appears entirely engineered to intefere with everything on a Linux system, no matter how divorced from SETTING UP THE OS it is indicates that the proponents of systemd have one of two aims:

      This article isn't even about systemd. You can fairly easily use Debian without systemd. This is about libsystemd which is a small library for interfacing with systemd if it is installed. It doesn't depend on systemd so you can have it installed without having systemd itself installed.

    7. Re:Choice is good. by thaylin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ah, another systemd complainer, who of course can't be bothered to have a real Slashdot account.

      However, the fact that systemd comes with the "USE US OR FAIL!" dire warning

      There's no such thing in systemd. Slackware (always the last to just on new trends) seems to be getting along fine without it.

      There are CONSTANT statements that if you do not use systemd you will not be able to use primary Linux distros in the future, because all software will supposedly be gobbled up by it as a dependency... To try and now make out like those dont exist is pretty silly.

      Given you only want to see complains as "whining" this indicates you do not want a free system.

      systemd is LGPL FOSS, so it's just as Free as anything else. You seem to be using the appeal to emotion fallacy.

      Again you are using half truths, or atleast feigning half understanding, or it may be possible that you dont understand the linux culture. It is pretty clear that he is talking about free in the sense of free beer, not free as in not paying for it.

      Pretending any discord against systemd must be illogic and panic is just your childish method for not having to argue against the problems highlighted.

      Because all the "problems" you cite are generally overblown or not problems at all. Please, show me where prominent distro maintainers are criticizing systemd and refusing to integrate it into their distros. The ramblings of some disgruntled random people on Slashdot are not equivalent to the opinions of experts in the field.

      Now you are A) doing exactly what the quoted person stated ,pretending the problems are overblown or not problems at all, when there have clearly been (debug fiasco) and are issues. You then make it seem like the only person who can show a problem are distro maintainers. Maintainers are typically not the mass admins who have to support it, possibly trying to move the goal posts. There is no doubt that system d helps the maintainers, but it also harms the admins.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    8. Re:Choice is good. by thaylin · · Score: 1

      Redhat has a lot of control over the marketplace and the direction of software packages.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    9. Re:Choice is good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You do know that it took many years before Red Hat even decided to go with systemd? They wanted to continue with Upstart in EL 7, it was only after it had been proven after being used in a number of Fedora releases that Red Hat agreed that it was the right way forward.

    10. Re:Choice is good. by lkcl · · Score: 5, Informative

      Can't someone fork a version without systemd?

      I agree, choice IS good. However, what I'm seeing so far is a bunch of vocal whiners on Slashdot bitching about systemd, and no one actually stepping up to make a distro that doesn't use it. So what it amounts to is a few loudmouths telling distro maintainers they're wrong, even though the loudmouths don't want to actually do any work on distros themselves.

      that's precisely why i actually worked hard and risked destroying my business by losing access to all data on a critical business laptop, documented the process of removing libsystemd0 from it, and *then* wrote the article.

      unlike the people you refer to, i actually *did something*.

      then, i contacted the devuan team and informed them about what i had done, so that they may consider properly replicating what i'd done as maintainable debian packages. so they now have a way forward where previously they would have been worried that their efforts would result in many people still having to remove huge numbers of packages - desktop GUIs, sane-utils, cups-daemon, pulseaudio and anything that depends on it, clamav and many many more. i've demonstrated that you *don't* have to remove all those packages and that you *can* still have a functioning debian desktop... without libsystemd0 even being on it.

    11. Re: Choice is good. by UnderCoverPenguin · · Score: 1

      There is a fork of Debian without systemd. Don't remover the spelling, but is pronounced "dev one".

      --
      Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
    12. Re: Choice is good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What's so bad about libsystemd0. It's not systemd.

    13. Re:Choice is good. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      I really don't see what all the fuss is about--Poettering has merely done for Linux what Monty Widenius did for relational databases. And we all agree that was a good thing, right?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    14. Re:Choice is good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So you risked your business in order to write this article?

      Excuse me, but knowing this I would never hire you or do business with you. If you put your work machine at risk for such petty reasons, I can't tell how many times you are going to put your work in jeopardy again for ideological reasons. You are a loose cannon.

      And here you are almost boasting about it so your comment sounds more important than it is. What would your employer or customers think if they read that? Are you really putting such a stain on your credibility just to win an internet argument? That's on you, pal. Use a less critical machine or a virtual one if you want to experiment, don't use your damn work machine. That's incredibly unprofessional.

      That's for starters. Next is, why should Debian care? That library is probably there for a reason and they aren't going to backpedal just because a careless user gambled a bit. Seeing your tone I can already imagine the issue you filed, and honestly, don't be surprised if they dismiss it.

      Doing something doesn't give you license for anything. Putting effort is not always rewarded. You are pretty much telling others how to do their job, and seeing that you are willing to put your own work at risk for ideological reasons, you are in no position to tell others what to do.

      Anyway, good job keeping the systemd debate warm. I don't know what we would have done without your "sacrifice". Now get lost and get some working ethics. Someone who does this kind of risky process on a critical machine doesn't deserve respect.
      Even less someone who uses that factoid as something to be proud of. That's just shameful.

    15. Re:Choice is good. by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Because all the "problems" you cite are generally overblown or not problems at all.

      While that may be true, the same could be said for all the claimed advantages of systemd -- that they are overblown or not really advantages.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    16. Re:Choice is good. by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Your article read like a rant. Just use a distribution that's been conservative like Crux or Alpine. Problem solved.

       

    17. Re:Choice is good. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      WTF are you talking about? KDE, X, file managers, FireFox, and LibroOffice all work just fine without systemd. I'm running all those things on my Mint laptop right now (Mint hasn't yet moved to systemd).

    18. Re:Choice is good. by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      "There are CONSTANT statements that if you do not use systemd you will not be able to use primary Linux distros in the future, because all software will supposedly be gobbled up by it as a dependency." - if that is true (or false), its their prerogative to create they systems as they want them.

      "Again you are using half truths, or at least feigning half understanding, or it may be possible that you dont understand the linux culture. ..." - nonsense, as i read it, he understands fully, it is free in all senses as it is free for you to choose another distro that suits you.

      there is a bundle of misinformation out there about the systemd project so there is a lot overblown junk out there but no-one has said there aren't bugs to be fixed

      "There is no doubt that system d helps the maintainers, but it also harms the admins." - thats a personal opinion

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    19. Re:Choice is good. by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      he is saying to you "if its that important to you, put your money where you mouth is "

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    20. Re:Choice is good. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      If you don't like it, make your own distro. Or use Slackware. No one is obligated to do things the way you want.

    21. Re:Choice is good. by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      "Hentai tentacles" seems more appropriate.

    22. Re:Choice is good. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Not a really great analogy, but there might be something to it.

      Basically, people are lazy. For the 2A vs. government abuses thing, the answer there is fairly simple: undertaking violent revolution against the US government is a good way to get killed, and at this point probably isn't going to change anything anyway. You're not going to get enough people to rise up at once to effect real change, not right now anyway. Maybe if we get to the point where lots of people have friends in concentration camps or something. So, you have ridiculously high risk and almost no chance of success and survival, so no one does anything.

      For systemd, there's no such risk. You can do whatever you want. The cost, however, is time and effort, plus there's the problem where a lot of the complainers probably aren't as technically capable as they think they are, and not enough to actually make their own distro. So while your 2A thing carries a big risk, systemd can be chalked up entirely to pure laziness. These people bitch and bitch and bitch, but most don't actually do anything productive such as make a new distro (well, it looks like there might be some effort into making a Debian fork, but we'll see how far that one gets). If these people spent as much time on making on productive things instead of bitching about systemd...

    23. Re:Choice is good. by Microlith · · Score: 1

      that's precisely why i actually worked hard and risked destroying my business by losing access to all data on a critical business laptop

      No offense, but while I've watched many of your projects with interest, if you "risked destroying [your] business because of losing access to data on a single laptop, you just might deserve to go out of business due to sheer stupidity. Both in lack of redundancy and doing whatever it was you were doing on what is effectively a "production" system.

    24. Re:Choice is good. by cyrano.mac · · Score: 1

      All I see is people complaining that "somebody" should make a fork without systemd or shut up.

      That's whining too!

      And you certainly haven't looked very hard as there are already several forks on the way. One's even almost finished, another one went pre-alpha past weekend.

    25. Re:Choice is good. by cyrano.mac · · Score: 1

      I just wanted to thank you for the article. I have a jessie setup running without systemd, but putting it together was kind of a puzzle.

      A lot of less-than-technical users on debian, raspbian, kali and other debian based distro's seem to have found a way to install systemd on wheezy with just running apt-get update and apt-get upgrade. Repository confusion, probably. In about half the cases I counted, it resulted in systems that no longer were able to boot. In some cases (encrypted fs, softraid, zfs...), all data on the bootdisk was lost.

    26. Re: Choice is good. by cyrano.mac · · Score: 1

      Systemd and libsystemd0 are not bad in itself, although there is some sloppy programming, but it's the depedency chain that is bad. A lot of things need systemd in the next release and it will soon be impossible to run debian without it.

      I've had enough trouble with pulse audio to be very wary about any other software coming from that corner

      Pulse audio seems like a good idea when it's working. Unfortunately it's almost impossible to trouble shoot because of it's monolithic character.

    27. Re:Choice is good. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      There are CONSTANT statements that if you do not use systemd you will not be able to use primary Linux distros in the future, because all software will supposedly be gobbled up by it as a dependency...

      Okay. Now ask yourself why. No really think about it. What functionality does systemd offer for user facing software that makes it a dependency. Certainly not it as an init system, or its logging, or ntp, or any of the many other things it does.

      I don't know the answer to this, but once you narrow it down you're on the way to resolving the issue. Software doesn't depend on systemd, it implements some feature that systemd provides. If everyone is so dead set against systemd then it should be fairly straight forward to provide a shim that exposes the required APIs so that your software is happy. That is typically how dependencies work.

      Kind of like how one of uselessd's goals is to get Gnome working without any systemd connection. Based on the amounts of complaints there has to be at least 10000 developers working on the problem right now.

    28. Re:Choice is good. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      No. People generally don't do anything "risky" on their primary business computer. They do things that are tried and tested and resolve the risk to a VM, clone, or other disposable device.

      Also good effort on comparing a system update to removing a fundamental package from the system that the package manager says everything depends on. That was a laugh. I too enjoy comparing something extremely risky no one else has done for the first time with a standard action tested on many systems by many people.

    29. Re:Choice is good. by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      There are CONSTANT statements that if you do not use systemd you will not be able to use primary Linux distros in the future, because all software will supposedly be gobbled up by it as a dependency... To try and now make out like those dont exist is pretty silly.

      There certainly are.

      And they mostly come from people on the anti-systemd side.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    30. Re:Choice is good. by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      This article isn't even about systemd. You can fairly easily use Debian without systemd. This is about libsystemd which is a small library for interfacing with systemd if it is installed. It doesn't depend on systemd so you can have it installed without having systemd itself installed.

      lkcl (Luke) also goes about it the hard way -- why didn't he just make a dummy libsystemd0 that satisfies the dependencies but does nothing?

      Of course even that is more work than is really needed -- as you point out libsystemd0 is pretty much a dummy package if systemd isn't installed.

      There seems to be some strange fear of systemd cooties going on.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    31. Re:Choice is good. by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      You might have even gone the extra mile and subscribed to their mailing list where you would see actual progress being made.

      I read the DNG archives. Can't exactly say I see a lot of "actual progress". But since the task they have taken on is more or less trivial (Luke seems to have done it on his own) I don't know what I'd expect to see.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    32. Re: Choice is good. by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Systemd and libsystemd0 are not bad in itself, although there is some sloppy programming, but it's the depedency chain that is bad. A lot of things need systemd in the next release and it will soon be impossible to run debian without it.

      No. One Debian package needs systemd -- gummiboot.

      libsystemd0 does nothing if systemd is not pid1.

      lkcl "actually worked hard and risked destroying [his] business by losing access to all data on a critical business laptop" for nothing. (And he seriously needs to learn to mount a scratch monkey).

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    33. Re:Choice is good. by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      There are CONSTANT statements that if you do not use systemd you will not be able to use primary Linux distros in the future, because all software will supposedly be gobbled up by it as a dependency...

      Okay. Now ask yourself why. No really think about it. What functionality does systemd offer for user facing software that makes it a dependency. Certainly not it as an init system, or its logging, or ntp, or any of the many other things it does.

      I don't know the answer to this, but once you narrow it down you're on the way to resolving the issue. Software doesn't depend on systemd, it implements some feature that systemd provides. If everyone is so dead set against systemd then it should be fairly straight forward to provide a shim that exposes the required APIs so that your software is happy. That is typically how dependencies work.

      Kind of like how one of uselessd's goals is to get Gnome working without any systemd connection. Based on the amounts of complaints there has to be at least 10000 developers working on the problem right now.

      Isn't libsystemd a shim library? Isn't that it's whole point? Since you know, it gets installed without the rest of systemd by software which wants to connect to systemd if it's running but otherwise ignore it?

    34. Re:Choice is good. by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      What about the loudmouths that created the systemd mess that throws away stderr, ignores higher priority syslog messages, and doesn't honor exit statuses?

      On any system I've been able to try (CentOS 7, Debian Sid/Jessie) systemd does not throw away high priority syslog message and systemd correctly logs stderr to the journal.

      Nobody has ever reported any of these strange behaviours as bugs (that I can find). If anyone does have a bug report that they could point me at, please do.

      The complaint about "honoring exit codes" is simply user error. If the same startup task is run on sysvinit then the exit code is also ignored.

      #!/bin/sh
       
      case $1 in
          start)
              # launch broken_sysvinit
              broken_sysvinit &
          *)
              # ...
      esac

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    35. Re:Choice is good. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I think we are talking about two different things, true dependency vs optional.

      Systemd is toxic that much is clear. I don't mean toxic from a technical standpoint, there are plenty of people who don't mind it or actively support it, but toxic from a personal farted in the elevator point of view. Some people want nothing to do with it. It is those people I was commenting about. It is the people who freak out about Gnome having a dependency on systemd-logind that I'm talking about. The true hard dependencies that happen for a reason.

      Right now if you want Gnome you have to install logind which has a dependency on systemd. It uses this for dbus. Rather than attacking Gnome's actions one needs to consider what alternate ways there are to provide what Gnome is providing.

      The difference to what the library in question here is is as far as I can see it's just a dumb library that exposes the systemd routines. libsystemd0 from all the documentation I can find allows applications to optionally use systemd components. That is to say libsystemd0 does not depend on systemd and without it actually does very little at all.

      Which makes me wonder why the hell someone goes to efforts to remove it in the first place. For the most part if you don't want to use functions that shim libraries use then don't install the underlying program.

    36. Re:Choice is good. by DrXym · · Score: 1

      Redhat has a lot of control over the marketplace and the direction of software packages.

      They have a lot of control over their own dist. What other dists do is entirely up to them. Which is why Red Hat uses yum / rpm and other dists do their own thing.

      The fact that other dists have moved to systemd may be due to the fact that SysVInit has recognized issues, particularly when supporting modern desktop / server environments and by comparison to other operating systems (Windows, Solaris etc.) and so they've chosen to switch.

    37. Re:Choice is good. by jcdr · · Score: 1

      I share your point of view.

      On embedded systems I have worked on, sysvinit was useless and in each project someone have wrote an application that manage services in a why that fit the dynamic nature of the system's hardware. Dependencies between services is a must.

    38. Re:Choice is good. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Your article read like a rant. Just use a distribution that's been conservative like Crux or Alpine. Problem solved.

      Debian was the conservative distribution, and we loved it for that. Sure, it meant having to compile a lot of stuff yourself if you needed bleeding edge features, but that's okay, we can do that. Now it wants to be the new shiny shiny, and some of us would prefer it not be that. Even Ubuntu understands the need to segregate shiny from stable, how is Debian forgetting? It's truly sad.

      We can and will move to something else, but that would be a hassle. And why should we have to?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    39. Re:Choice is good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The fork exists; it's called devuan.

    40. Re:Choice is good. by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      Lennart Poettering whose crime was "writing a software package for free",

      Poettering is a paid employee of the Red Hat corporation.

      Incidentally, 50% of Red Hat's revenue comes from the US Army.

      So, transitive property of funding...

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    41. Re:Choice is good. by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Debian was the conservative distribution

      Debian was moderately conservative it was never extreme. Debian was one of the last distributions to move to systemd and did so as gently as they felt they could. Debian was keeping with its pattern not breaking from it.

      Now it wants to be the new shiny shiny

      No it doesn't. Debian wants to be able to run mainstream Linux software even when upstream is starting to drop support for initd. That's conservative. If you want even more conservative Crux is good.

    42. Re:Choice is good. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      When I said "system update", I meant something like updating from Linux Mint 16 to Linux Mint 17, not just a routine weekly security fix.

    43. Re:Choice is good. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      The only point you have here which is valid is the NSA one, because you can't choose your government (not by yourself). No one is forcing you to use NVidia or Steam. Just like no one is forcing you to use systemd or any particular feature.

    44. Re:Choice is good. by RavenLrD20k · · Score: 1

      So... Is there a yum or apt based distro available that hasn't drunk the systemd Kool-Aid yet and has no foreseeable plan to? I've been looking for a distro to sink my yearly OS donation fund into since the Debian dried up and CentOS looks like shakey ground. At least something to tide me over until Devuan actually puts out a stable OS so that I can see how it will work for my needs.

    45. Re:Choice is good. by RavenLrD20k · · Score: 1

      More like "Oh, you've changed your fundamental structure. Screw you guys, I'm taking my yearly donation fund and going home!" I know the value of an operating system. I normally take half the price of what I would pay for a commercial server UNIX licenses and dump that into a donation fund that gets split among the OS projects I use. If a project uses systemd and doesn't offer an alternative, they don't get my money for further development, and I'll use legacy versions of their software until I can find something to replace it with. Simple.

    46. Re:Choice is good. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Which is also a tried and tested and supported process which absolutely does not even remotely compare to ripping apart the dependency tree in your distribution.

    47. Re:Choice is good. by lkcl · · Score: 1

      There are CONSTANT statements that if you do not use systemd you will not be able to use primary Linux distros in the future, because all software will supposedly be gobbled up by it as a dependency... To try and now make out like those dont exist is pretty silly.

      not "supposedly" - *really*. if you run apt-rdepends -r libsystemd0 | a bit of awk | sort | uniq there are four *THOUSAND* five hundred packages that, if you were ever to do "apt-get --purge remove libsystemd0" you would NEVER be able to install. that's a whopping FIFTEEN PERCENT of the entire debian package repository that you are prevented and prohibited from installing, should you ever make the decision that you wish to keep libsystemd0 off of machines that you manage!

      the reason for this insane level of *hard* dependency is because lennart pottering is both the developer of libsystemd0 *and* many other packages such as pulseaudio... so of *course* he decided that pulseaudio had to include - as a hard dependency - one of his projects, libsystemd0. libsdl likewise also uses it as a hard compile-time dependency, along with about 100 other applications and libraries.

      those applications and libraries then quickly spread as further hard dependencies to include the gimp, apache2-dev, php5 (??!), erlang, libreoffice, cups, bluez/bluetooth (because of the links to pulseaudio), *all* the games that use libsdl (i.e. pretty much all of them), *all* the music software available for GNU/Linux (because of the link to pulseaudio), openjdk7, the eclipse IDE, apache tomcat, the android SDK, i mean.... the list is a _real_ eye-opener. you can review it here for yourself:

            http://lkcl.net/reports/removi...

      so yeah, not even _close_ to "supposedly", mate!

    48. Re:Choice is good. by Celarent+Darii · · Score: 1

      towards Lennart Poettering whose crime was "writing a software package for free"

      I hope you know that Poettering works for Redhat. He is not writing this stuff for free.

      In fact, to write stuff this convoluted and poisonous, I dare say you would have to be paid for it.

    49. Re:Choice is good. by exomondo · · Score: 1

      Oh, is that all? People just have to "make a distro that doesn't use it". Like that's just a small thing, like finding a typo in the documentation or some such.

      It's not even that, they just need to maintain the existing non-systemd codebase. There are distros that don't have systemd in them and if they have plans to integrate it then the non-systemd codebase just needs to be forked and maintained. You can hope this is done for you by volunteers, you can do it yourself or you can pay somebody to do it for you.

      This seems like more a case of wanting one's free software to also be free of cost and free of effort.

    50. Re:Choice is good. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Debian was moderately conservative it was never extreme

      you're joking, right? Debian has always been known for being hopelessly outdated in stable. But often, that's just what I want, like for servers or appliances. If I really need something newer I can build it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    51. Re:Choice is good. by jbolden · · Score: 1

      No it is about 2 years behind. Not 15. There are distributions which are much further behind.

    52. Re:Choice is good. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      This has really demonstrated the lack of value of free software over open source for example.

      What are you talking about? Free software is a subset of open-source, sorta: FS is a philosophy, while OS is a development process. FS has provided us with lots of great software, including Linux (the kernel), X, Open/LibreOffice, Firefox, and countless more packages. How does "open source" top that, when it includes it (though it technically also includes stuff like MS's "shared source")?

      All the while youve got RMS doing stupid shit that runs counter to the whole "freedom" idea like trying to prevent GCC users from sending the frontend output to proprietary backends,

      I don't remember anything about that, I remember him wanting to put up a restriction to keep gcc from working with a non-GPL (but still Free) backend. It's just another licensing argument, which is very common in the Free Software community. You can criticize it if you like, but the idea that we should all just give up on Free Software because of occasional things like this and run back to Microsoft and Apple is ridiculous.

    53. Re:Choice is good. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      No it is about 2 years behind. Not 15. There are distributions which are much further behind.

      Ah yes, the logical fallacy of being a dickwad. That's a ridiculous number to invent out of whole cloth, which is what you just did there.

      Debian is well-known for being behind every other mainstream distribution, and only you don't know it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    54. Re:Choice is good. by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      not "supposedly" - *really*. if you run apt-rdepends -r libsystemd0 | a bit of awk | sort | uniq there are four *THOUSAND* five hundred packages that, if you were ever to do "apt-get --purge remove libsystemd0" you would NEVER be able to install. that's a whopping FIFTEEN PERCENT of the entire debian package repository that you are prevented and prohibited from installing, should you ever make the decision that you wish to keep libsystemd0 off of machines that you manage!

      And why do you want to keep libsystemd0 off your system?

      Do you know what libsystemd0 does?

      (Hint: it does nothing if systemd is not pid 1).

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    55. Re:Choice is good. by jbolden · · Score: 1

      That's just not true. Debian stable is probably on par with RHEL. It certainly was slower than many of the others that were more fluid.

      Anyway you don't really have a point. You are just spouting insults.

    56. Re:Choice is good. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      That's just not true. Debian stable is probably on par with RHEL.

      Widely known to be second-slowest, right behind Debian stable. Come on, seriously. This is common knowledge.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    57. Re:Choice is good. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Um... Slackware?

    58. Re:Choice is good. by Beck_Neard · · Score: 1

      No, more like "I appreciate your effort, but you haven't made the right decisions and so I am going to go somewhere else. Thanks."

      --
      A fool and his hard drive are soon parted.
    59. Re:Choice is good. by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      > run on sysvinit then the exit code is also ignored.

      Wow, you systemd guys lie a lot. It is a serious bug, and your example is contrived. Of course if you intentionally ignore the exit status by appending a & at the end of the line, then the exit status will correctly be ignored.

      Except that with systemd the exit status is not ignored.

      The contrived "systemd_broken" bug was exactly the same thing as my broken init script -- launch a process that fails after being forked and then complain that systemctl start didn't report the error.

      But systemd status does report the error.

      Try it for fucks sake.

      # cat broken_systemd.sh
      #! /bin/sh
      echo "Oh noes, the daemon is dead!" >&1
      exit 1
       
      # cat /etc/systemd/system/broken_systemd.service
      [Unit]
      Description=Broken systemd example
      After=network.target
       
      [Service]
      User=root
      Group=root
      ExecStart=/root/broken_systemd.sh
       
      [Install]
      WantedBy=multi-user.target
      # systemctl start broken_systemd
      # echo $?
      0
      # systemctl status -l broken_systemd.service
      * broken_systemd.service - Broken systemd example
        Loaded: loaded (/etc/systemd/system/broken_systemd.service; disabled)
        Active: failed (Result: exit-code) since Thu 2015-02-19 12:31:13 CET; 19s ago
        Process: 4586 ExecStart=/root/broken_systemd.sh (code=exited, status=1/FAILURE)
        Main PID: 4586 (code=exited, status=1/FAILURE)
       
      Feb 19 12:31:13 celtic broken_systemd.sh[4586]: Oh noes, the daemon is dead!
      Feb 19 12:31:13 celtic systemd[1]: broken_systemd.service: main process exited, code=exited, status=1/FAILURE
      Feb 19 12:31:13 celtic systemd[1]: Unit broken_systemd.service entered failed state.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
  3. 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 Great+Big+Bird · · Score: 2

      A thousand yeses could not match the rightfulness of this post.

    2. Re:Pointless by steak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the problem is that for many, if not most, an alternative to init was neither needed nor desired. if anything systemd is taking talent away from developing your precious drivers in order to develop a solution looking for a problem.

    3. Re:Pointless by solidraven · · Score: 1

      Ever realised that it might actually be desired? Its simply that people who disagree are generally a lot more vocal. I have yet to see any unbiased statistics on the well-informed people's opinion of systemd.

    4. Re:Pointless by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This post is the prime example of the way people on opposite sides of the debate are talking past each other. Given Linux's historical roots as a hobbyist OS, with almost all of the mid-late 90's spent as an academic OS that gradually worked its way into the enterprise environment by displaying commercial Unix distributions, a very large part of the folks who use Linux use it because it is "harder" to work with which is to say "easier" to tailor to their particular applications away from the desktop.

      I use it on my desktop because I like it, but I learned to like it because I used it in scientific applications where I needed something I could customize and go deep on without being forced to follow Microsoft's or Apple's design decisions or having to fork over tens of thousands of dollars for VxWorks or QNX or HPUX or whatever and some more for ports of software that just happen to already exist in the GNU/Linux/FOSS ecosystem.

      Did it take me a good couple of hours of googling to figure out how something worked? Sure. Lots of times. I'm pretty sure it would have taken me days to get the same result with Windows or Mac, if it was at all possible, becaues those were commercial OS's geared toward nontechnical consumers, with all the ambiguity and flexibility taken out. The most famous example is Steve Jobs deciding that the average luser was too stupid for more than one button on their mouse. But that's cosmetic. There are deep technical places where that sort of limitation does matter.

      So why the bitching about systemd? Well, that core of people, few of whom really cared about widespread desktop adoption to begin with because their attention was spent on backend or niche scientific and technical applications, are seeing the push for Linux On The Desktop take the predictable direction of removing flexibilty from the system and, here's the important bit, forcing other software in the echosystem to remove flexibility to conform to The SystemD Way. Speaking for myself as a decade-long user of Linux, this came out of left field and looks like trying to solve a problem that never really existed for the Linux userbase by removing the very characteristics of the system that attracted folks like myself to use it for scientific and technical applications where Windows and Mac don't cut it and Big Blue and its equivalents are too damned expensive to be worth it.

      So here's how we're talking past each other: you're trying to solve a problem I don't think needs solving, and you don't understand why people who use Linux now use it at all.

    5. Re:Pointless by MrBingoBoingo · · Score: 1

      But Linux Mint itself is still without systemd until at least 2017 by their own timeline and even then on their "Cinnamon" desktop spin they are still planning at least now to support multiple init systems when Linux Mint 18 comes out.

    6. Re:Pointless by solidraven · · Score: 2

      First of all 1.5 billion, not billions. They also sell a lot more than just their flavour of Linux, which many people seem to forget. (Its all explained pretty well on their website.)

      Granted the Stallman comment is a bit old fashioned, but still applies considering his recent whining. But I heavily disagree on the driver remark. If you mean old hardware, sure it has better support. On the other hand if you're running a recent system, lets say a laptop. Forget about having a smooth install unless you buy very specific models of specific brands. Even my ThinkPad, which was rated as having "good" linux support has shoddy WiFi drivers at best, the soundcard fails to operate without me performing quite a lot of manual configuration, and things like free-fall protection for the harddrive you can just sort of forget about. To give you an idea, I installed Debian on my laptop and it took two days to get it up and running. Keep in mind I am very familiar with FreeBSD so I'm not exactly unfamiliar with configuring this type of system. I then proceeded to install Windows 7, other than spending half an hour fixing the bootloader I pretty much only had to install the network driver and Windows did most of the work. On Linux I had to actively invest time in it, time that I could have spent doing other things. And the whining about Windows 8 is also rather old. While I must admit I still run 7 on my home systems, at work I use 8 on a daily basis. Just disable the charms bar, and have it jump to desktop at boot: annoying features disabled.

      And so much became clear, but they should just shut up their clapper already or get to work.

    7. Re:Pointless by solidraven · · Score: 1

      I heavily disagree with you on that. But I'll leave it to yourself to figure out why having a centralized system isn't a bad idea.

    8. Re:Pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No. Do you know why? For the same reason why your claim "might actually be desired" was made: I only included those who did not desire it.

      There is and was no need for systemd.

      DEFINITELY no need for it to be so infectious that it killed any OS that includes it when taking it out.

      Some may desire it, but MOST *by a large majority* DO NOT.

      Most of those, admittedly, do not care one way or another, but those desiring it such as you seem willing to make their silence an act of willing desire, not apathy.

    9. Re:Pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Its not just some piece of software though. Its all pieces of software that do not allow the user to remove them because some how the dependency system has been perverted to weld them in the operating system at the lowest level and to as many other losely related programs in the hardest possible way.

      systemd is just the latest and is the last straw, I fully expect to see the removal of systemd, avahi, pulseaudio, policykit, network-manager, udisk2, gnome3 and if it gets freaked any more gtk3 from a number of distributions that have seen community projects hijacked.

      The parent distros will have fewer non-paid contributors and will be free to corrupt the development in favor of the mythical average user and the new forks will continue to develop for themselves and their workplaces as before because they have to get things done and keep things working.

    10. 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.
    11. Re:Pointless by Kremmy · · Score: 1, Insightful

      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.
      The flaw in this statement is the fact that systemd is replacing alternatives in such a way that it breaks everything if you try to use an alternative. It makes it so being able to use the same alternatives that have existed since long before systemd came about, is no longer an option. It removes the alternatives. Every major piece of software for Linux that decides to become dependent on systemd removes the ability to consider alternatives.
      What I see is projects like GNOME, with a growing dependence on SystemD, becoming unsuitable alternatives because they no longer support alternatives. I see this idea that other systems should be expected to conform to systemd architecture if they want to continue to benefit from said software.
      I personally prefer to use cross-platform software. I prefer software that runs about the same regardless of the platform I'm using it on, and I prefer to have the option to use any supported platform to run the software. Now I'm afraid that software I've come to rely on is going to take that possibility away. I'm afraid that I won't be able to use my preferred cross-platform applications on OS X and Windows in the future because they gained some strange dependence on SystemD.
      If we reach a point where a full featured Linux desktop cannot be run without SystemD, the entire idea of working on alternatives becomes moot.

    12. Re: Pointless by Billly+Gates · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    13. 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?

    14. Re:Pointless by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      There's a big difference between "we'll never adopt systemd" and "we're going to adopt it later after we're really sure it's ready for prime-time".

      Also, Mint is a derivative of Ubuntu, so they're largely stuck with whatever Ubuntu does, unless they want to take on extra work. I'm pretty sure Ubuntu is following the same plan mostly.

    15. Re:Pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I personally believe that systemd and a lot of the recent additions to desktop Linux are needlessly complex and creates an interdependency that makes it hard to debug and understand how the system is affected by changes.

      It is bad design...

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

      Yes, since the systemd supporters didn't like sysvinit, they certainly should have forked a distro and put systemd in it. I wonder why they didn't just do that?

    17. Re:Pointless by devent · · Score: 2

      First of all, Linux is already mainstream on servers, super computers, embedded systems, smartphones, etc. Second, what have Stallman to do with anything? If there would be no Stallman and GNU, there wouldn't be Linux. But today Stallman don't play a major role in Linux development anymore. Third, a Linux system is pretty easy to use. Just install it and it works. And lastly, no user care one bit about the discussion over systemd. Users are just using what is the default and if it works, it's fine. Sysvinit and systemd are just fine for users, it's only the hardcore old school users that are whining about systemd.

      --
      http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
    18. Re:Pointless by solidraven · · Score: 1

      Then break it, afraid to take a leap of faith? People with more control over this than you have chosen systemd, if you don't like it do something about it: make an alternative available. If enough people agree they'll take you into account, if they don't then you were clearly wrong and you'll have to drop it in a year or two. Instead you're now wasting several hundreds of man years on complaining about it. And by pointing at Gnome you're not exactly convincing me. Gnome is a pest that should have died aeons ago,

    19. Re:Pointless by sjames · · Score: 1

      I didn't have any problems at all with my laptop. Linux just worked out of the box. I didn't have to do a lot of shopping around for it, I just looked over the broad overview and weeded out the ones with junky hardware (that I wouldn't want in a Windows box either).

      The last time I had to do heavy Googling and schlep driver disks around was installing Windows on a new-ish desktop machine.

      As for Windows 8, even long time MS fans rejected that one in droves.

    20. Re:Pointless by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > While it all sounds nice, you do realize 99.99% of the population just sort of wants their computer to work.

      Exactly!

      Messing around with a fundemental low level part of the system when it is simply not broken is retarded.

      It is true that many of us want our systems to "just work". The problem is that the replacements for initd DON'T DO THAT. They come of as the work of bored children that need a distraction.

      If you want to go on some sort of crusade, actually find something that's an actual problem.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    21. Re:Pointless by solidraven · · Score: 1

      It's no different for Apple. Good luck installing Mac OSX on a Thinkpad or worse an Acer. But no one has a problem with this.

      Apple/OSX, lol. That summarizes my comment about Apple software and hardware. And Acer is still a lot better than Compaq used to be.

      Get rid of your Broadcom card and get an Intel card instead. You can get them for $15 on Ebay. Broadcom sucks.

      Its Intel, sadly the driver again requires specific configurations to be fully functional. And there's no hope of ever getting WiDi to function properly either.

      If you have Intel sound you shouldn't have that problem.

      Again, not going to shop for specific hardware just to make an OS work. If you can't even support Rockwell/Conexant and Realtek properly I wouldn't you have good hardware support.

    22. Re:Pointless by kthreadd · · Score: 1

      He's a prime example of the mentality that keeps Linux from achieving mainstream desktop and laptop use.

      He works on GNU, not Linux.

    23. Re:Pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They didn't because many of the package maintainers decided, for whatever their reasons, to include it in the major mainline distributions. I'm sure they would have made their own fork/distribution if that did not happen.

      Despite all of the hate, the rate of adoption seems to scream the package maintainers seem to be thinking, right or wrong, "thank god somebody got rid of sysvinit". People have been claiming that the distributions are all being strong-armed into adopting systemd but, because of these sheer number of distributions adopting it make that claim seem absurd. I could see the developer having a powerful influence on one to three distributions, but this many? It makes it sound like a conspiracy theory temper tantrum because they cannot accept that the majority has made a different choice than they wanted. Right or wrong, the majority of distributions (by usage) has spoken, time to move on.

      - TheReaperD (937405)

    24. Re:Pointless by solidraven · · Score: 1

      Then you got lucky, statistically speaking Linux has a very crappy track record. And I've installed Linux on a lot of different hardware over the years. Always there is one thing that hangs up unless you buy specific hardware and have some luck finding configuration files of somebody else.

      Weird eh, worst case scenario I download the driver from the manufacturer website and install it. And that generally does the trick on Windows, no configuration and digging through files required. Though I suppose this is something which could actually be fixed by systemd.

      Saying Windows 8 sucks fell out of fashion ages ago, especially since 8.1 came around.

    25. Re:Pointless by solidraven · · Score: 1

      You do realize initd is a huge problem right? It sort of prevents the entire "just working" thing for the non-tech savy people who don't have a lot of spare time on their hands.

    26. Re:Pointless by thaylin · · Score: 1

      Way to misrepresent the issue. No one is complaining about a centralized system.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    27. Re:Pointless by Harlequin80 · · Score: 1

      You have had a significantly different experience to me. My experience with Linux Mint is I just install it and it works. The only thing I have ever had any issues with recently is the optimus chipset from Nvidia because there was no support for switching between video cards.

      Now Windows 7 on the other hand has become a monumental pain. I drop the disk in and it installs fine. First boot comes up and none of the network devices are working. I have to go to another machine download the drivers and transfer them via usb. Once I have network up the machine will spend HOURS downloading, rebooting, downloading, rebooting all the updates. Then at the end of the whole process device manager still shows a number of devices it can't recognise (yes I set windows to be able to look online for drivers).

      I use windows 7 at home for games, haven't tried win 8 at all and use linux mint at work and at home when not gaming.

    28. Re:Pointless by grcumb · · Score: 4, Informative

      I'm not philosophically opposed to what you're suggesting here. I am incensed, though, that it should be necessary.

      So you think that you're entitled to getting software, free of cost, which is exactly the way you want it to be. The people who actually invest their time and effort into making these distros should, instead of doing what *they* think is the best course of action, do what *you* think is right, even though you don't feel like investing your time and effort into the project.

      No, I think that people should follow my fucking example and listen to others, perhaps learning a little humility in the process.

      I already told you I write FOSS; I scratch that itch when I need to. I have a fucking right to talk about this because I've walked the fucking walk. And I won't do you the indignity of asking whether you have as well.

      I am trying to suggest that writing code is not the only useful role to be played in FOSS development. I am trying to suggest that we can't write all the code, all the time, so it behooves all developers to listen to their peers, if only to learn from their mistakes.

      And now, you can perhaps go back and respond to the main question, which is why you think numbers matter in FOSS development?

      All the people who maintain distros have considered and discarded your arguments. So why should I value your opinion over theirs?

      Well, given that I told you that I've been a distro maintainer, your assertion is incorrect. Not all of us have discarded these arguments. Your assertion is a textbook case of No True Scotsman. But don't take my opinion in isolation; why not go ask Ian what his reservations are?

      See, this is pretty much precisely my point. It's not that people's opinions are getting ignored. That happens all the time. It's that people aren't listening at all. And more to the point, that really critically important lessons of the past are being set aside merely because a small number of people have become convinced that they know a better way.

      Again: in and of itself, that's not necessarily a problem. The problem here is that these particular people are wrong.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    29. Re:Pointless by thaylin · · Score: 1

      Or you've never written software for Windows before

      Just like most pro systemd commentators that one quote explains it all. We are not talking about people who are writing programs, we are talking about the people who are using it on a day to day basis to manage the programs.

      The flexability was what made linux what is is today, which probably the best server OS on the market. The flexibility to control everything to the minute level.

      If you need something that does not take an understanding of the system, which removes the flexibility of the Sys amin to troubleshoot things fully, keep with windows.

      --
      When you cant win, ad hominem.
    30. Re:Pointless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We have about 15-20 different laptop-models at work... All of them work fine with a clean Ubuntu install + driver-package from the manufacturer. (*gasp* yes, a laptop with *gasp* vendor-support for linux *gasp*)
      We have around another another 3-4 models of laptops that do require a bit more extra work since the manufacturer do not support linux on them, but that was just some simple tweaks like having to manually download and install a few drivers from the network/audio chip-vendor..

      At home i'm running a ubuntu on a macbook pro.. works fine with a clean install, with some extra work (2-3 hours) i have everything in it working except the webcam (no driver for the new PCI-E webcam)..

      Running a debian on my QNAP nas.. All that one required was some manual setup of where /boot should go since it defaulted to booting off a internal USB stick. Features not working - the LED's to indicate HD activity, but have not bothered with a patch for that..

      Complaining that the wifi driver is shabby is not a valid complaint... Either you go with a pre-certified linux-system to know that everything works out of the box or you have to do research...
      The same goes for windows... Buy a Windows 8 certified system or do your research that all required drivers are available..

      And btw... we have quite a few older (4-5 years) systems that are unable to run windows 8 due to missing drivers.... It goes both ways.. Make sure the system is supported (by the community or the vendor) by the wanted OS before you start complaining....

    31. Re:Pointless by lkcl · · Score: 1, Troll

      I personally prefer to use cross-platform software. I prefer software that runs about the same regardless of the platform I'm using it on, and I prefer to have the option to use any supported platform to run the software.

      can you please do me a favour and make those thoughts known on the following wine bugreport? http://bugs.winehq.org/show_bu...

        the reason i ask is because there is critical functionality in wine that should never have been allowed to go so long without being implemented, and it's Named Pipes "Message Mode". the problem with message-mode is that there really is no good POSIX equivalent, and AJ - the paid-up employee - is in such a dominant and abusive position of authority that nobody may challenge his dictatorship. the only option left to implement anything remotely resembling message-mode under the extreme and fascist technically-tight conditions dictated by AJ is a non-portable hack using a little-known feature of TCP sockets that is *only* implemented in the linux kernel.

      i mention this in the context of what you say to illustrate that the problem you highlight is not just restricted to one piece of software (systemd), but is a common problem across many of the critical pieces of software that we are using today. and the worst part is that *in each case* it is extremely difficult to gain sufficient technical expertise in order to engage with these people.... but even if you *do* have the technical expertise they often are so entrenched in their day-to-day mindset as absolute... "gods of their world" that even a reasonable and rational argument is completely ignored.

      the long and short of it is that GNU/Linux software is getting out of hand, and is becoming so complex as well as so prevalent that the dominance and arrogance of just one person or company can have massive detrimental consequences for a *lot* of people. i'm really not sure what can be done about this, if anything.

    32. Re:Pointless by lucm · · Score: 1

      Cadence software

      I don't understand why some people choose a career path that exposes them to such things. It's like that guy I know who is a Tivoli Backup expert. Or that other guy who spends his days working on Oracle Forms.

      Life is too short for that!

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    33. Re:Pointless by sjames · · Score: 1

      Funny, the non-systemd install I did last just worked AND it was easy to modify where needed.

      Some of the features of systemd aren't a bad idea if they could get over their insecurity and not have it plant unnecessary tendrils all over.

      For example, why in the world does systemd need to have a boot loader growing out of the side of it's head?

    34. 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.

    35. Re:Pointless by Kremmy · · Score: 1

      I point out GNOME because I actually think that GNOME 3 had some value to it. I was pleasantly surprised by some of the changes and genuinely felt they had made some improvements despite the complaints made about it. Unfortunately, it's a lot like the Windows 8 situation, where the honest improvements are drowned out by the silly bullshit. I think that SystemD is having a very similar predicament with the actual improvements being lost in the surrounding wasteland. We're not going to see an end to the tirade against SystemD unless we come out of this change with a system that's honestly better and has honestly solved the problems it's expected to solve.
      I get this feeling from the comment I replied to that you expect SystemD to do something to solve driver issues. That's a great example of why I'm not fond of SystemD, the people who support it apparently think it's going to fix all these issues that it shouldn't actually have anything to do with. You're not going to fix drivers by rewriting the userland init system.

    36. Re:Pointless by sjames · · Score: 1

      Funny, I seem to have gotten 'lucky' three times in a row.

    37. Re: Pointless by armanox · · Score: 1

      Sun and Ubuntu did replace init, but that's all their replacement did. It didn't creep into other areas and try to take over all of system management.

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
    38. Re:Pointless by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      While it all sounds nice, you do realize 99.99% of the population just sort of wants their computer to work

      Then use Windows, or OSX. There are systems for people like you. Linux is for people who care about the internals of their OS, and want them to be clean.

      It is a healthy thing we are having this conversation, because it will end up with a better system, or better understanding of that system. We could do without the insults and emotional rants, but those are part of being inclusive (that is, you shouldn't have to be a smooth-talker to participate in open source).

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    39. Re:Pointless by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      I've been running Linux on laptops without much trouble for about 10 years. Mostly Acers. I didn't realise that made me an outlier.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    40. Re:Pointless by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      But at least you don't have to recompile the executable 20 times for every different flavour and you don't have to mess with GNU Make or GCC, which I consider bonus points

      The only time you need to recompile for different distros is when you really, realy don't understand how building works and are making use of features pretty unique to FOSS operating systems.

      To avoid recompiling on Linux, or BSD for that matter, you simpy do what you have to do on Windows and OSX anyway: link in known versions of any libraries you use which aren't system libraries. If you're depending on a library from a random package, don't do it.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    41. Re:Pointless by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      You should be ashamed of yourself. No, really.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    42. Re:Pointless by sjames · · Score: 1

      Alternatively, the maintainers say "OH MY GOD, it's so tangled up it'll take me 3 years just to cut this Gordian knot! I'll have to include systemd and hope for the best".

    43. Re:Pointless by armanox · · Score: 1

      Really? Because I see plenty of guides and plenty of people who will answer questions about getting XYZ to work with Fedora and Red Hat.

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
    44. Re: Pointless by Billly+Gates · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sun and Ubuntu did replace init, but that's all their replacement did. It didn't creep into other areas and try to take over all of system management.

      How is upstartd, SMF, launchd, different than SystemD?

      From brief overview the arguments it does everything is fud. No it does not route packets. It launches a process which communicates to the networking daemon inet for this. No it does manage kernel level threads. It is not a mini operating system at all and is just 300k lines of code.

      SystemD is no different than the other event driven alternatives. It just requires relearning which people set in their ways get infuriated about.

      With startupd, launchd, SMF, and SystemD you set the triggers for each event. No long scripts loaded with nested if/else statements galore or expensive proprietary software to mask this lack of functionality in init.

      That is my answer to the grandparents argument there was no need for change. Kind of reminds me of XP users angry at MS for merely just 13 years of support and do not see the obvious need for security via ASLR ram scrambling & DEP, better process handling, better driver models, USB storage frameworks, and so on.

      Things progress

    45. Re:Pointless by armanox · · Score: 1

      I've always had much better luck with a fresh install of Linux then with Windows. Especially in situations where it may have been the only computer in the location (I know, not a problem any more). I can point to any number of Dell systems I've had in the past 10 years that worked with Linux (with the exception of some Broadcom cards that you needed NDISWrapper for) - my Precision M4500 is better supported under Linux then under Windows (actually is. Finding drivers for Windows 8.1 for it was a nightmare since Dell doesn't support it and there were issues with some of the Windows 7 drivers). I can point to plenty of Thinkpads and Toshiba Satellites that I have sitting around that I never had to muck with any settings to get to work in Linux either.

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
    46. Re:Pointless by ad1217 · · Score: 1

      The reason Windows "just works" on newer hardware is because the manufactures write drivers for Windows. The Linux community tends to have to reverse engineer its drivers, which means they are sometimes not as good, and take a bit to be released.

    47. Re:Pointless by armanox · · Score: 1

      Why don't you switch to a real UNIX, which uses sysvinit?

      That's why I switched my home servers to IRIX...uses a real init system....

      BSD init and SMF only replaced init. They didn't attempt to take over the rest of system configuration.

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
    48. Re:Pointless by thesupraman · · Score: 1

      And what the hell does THAT have to do with SystemD?

      If you think it simplifies anything, then go and try and work out how to change the default runlevel of your machine when it starts up..

      Before SystemD, then I just change the file /etc/inittab, been that way for a long long time.

      Now... well, I wont ruin the surprise, really, just go and find out.

      And this is PROGRESS?

    49. Re:Pointless by lkcl · · Score: 3, Insightful

      See, this is pretty much precisely my point. It's not that people's opinions are getting ignored. That happens all the time. It's that people aren't listening at all. And more to the point, that really critically important lessons of the past are being set aside merely because a small number of people have become convinced that they know a better way.

      Again: in and of itself, that's not necessarily a problem. The problem here is that these particular people are wrong.

      no, i disagree: i feel you pretty much nailed it but didn't realise it. the problem i feel really *is* that they're not listening... in combination with there being no alternative. if there was an alternative - a less disruptive one - then the fact that these key high-impact decisions were being made would *not matter*. why? because we would be able to use the alternatives and the people who were not listening could go screw themselves, and nobody would care.

      it really *is* the fact that these people have such disproportionate influence and effect, and that they really *are* ramming "Their Way" down everyone's throats in such a cavalier way.

      they may well perfectly be technically right (i have seen multiple analyses of systemd which indicate that they are not), but that *doesn't matter*, because it's the fact that they gave us no choice that is of far greater priority.

      of all the arguments that i've seen, i have never seen one presented to the systemd team that gets this across to them clearly. the majority of arguments are either technical or abusive. it's only when you take a step back and think "what's really going on here"..

    50. Re:Pointless by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Note that RedHat does not actually develop Linux - they are selling support for Linux, which in and of itself is telling. They are focusing on helping people use the tool instead of expecting people to change it themselves, and the market has responded by paying them.

      Huh? Red Hat employs most of the systemd developers, a bunch of Gnome devs (unfortunately...), some kernel devs IIRC, and a bunch of other Linux-related devs. They contribute a huge amount to Linux development in general. How do they "not actually develop Linux"? That comment is mind-boggling. No, they're not the sole developer of Linux, but they are one of the heavyweight contributors, probably the largest.

      I have *never* found a piece of PC hardware that did not have Windows drivers.

      Get some pre-Vista hardware and see how it runs on Windows 8. There's lots of it that doesn't work because the mfgr never bothered to make a Vista or later driver.

    51. Re:Pointless by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      That's irrelevant. Try installing it on non-Apple hardware. Apple can't prohibit it; they do not have the ability to write laws.

      The point is, MacOSX isn't going to work on some random hardware. It doesn't have driver support for it.

    52. Re:Pointless by devent · · Score: 1

      Web servers run the Internet, so I would say that they "run everything". Whatever, the question was about whether or not Linux is mainstream. It doesn't really matter if it's highly customized or not. That is actually a selling point of Linux, that you can customize it. How is Stallman keeping Linux from mainstream desktop? He doesn't run anything (Canonical or RedHat or Suse), he is not a developer, he is an activist. And without him there would be no Linux, because there would be no gcc or all the other GNU tools, and no GPL, the license that made Linux successful.

      I used now a lot of laptops with Linux and usually it runs everything out of the box. 10 years ego I had problems with a DSL modem, but there was also a driver available. Linux have usually problems with printers and scanners if those vendors chose not to support Linux.

      --
      http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
    53. Re:Pointless by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

      I've never had an issue with a laptop that I've selected running Linux sine the later 2.2 kernels.

      Either when buying new for work I've just bought the Dell business line and made sure the wireless was supported (just pick the Intel offering) and no issues.

      For personal use I've either been given stuff - again, Dells for the most part - or bought cheap at a pawn shop. Before taking or buying, I just boot with a LiveCD and make sure it all works. Knoppix became available when? Do you remember the NT Hardware Compatability List? And how you could use the NT 4.0 CD to make 2 disks that would interrogate the hardware and tell you what was supported and what wasn't? I've seen poorly maintained lists of various hardware support, but they were never really useful for me. The LiveCD trick though *anyone* can do, and I'd recommend doing as a hardware function test on a used machine even if you are planning to run Windows on it.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    54. Re:Pointless by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Of course process management was needed. That's why virtually every commercial Unix, along with most other large system (i-Series OS, z-Series OS, VMS...) had it. That's why the most succesful desktop Unix OSX has it. Hundreds of applications of have had to work around the limitations of initd.

    55. Re:Pointless by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      And these people have no business setting up servers and clusters and embedded systems and all the other sorts of techie things that initd did and does just fine as is, but with more than zero brain power required. Is it tricky to get going on the $200 PC you bought for Grandma from some Taiwanese sweat shop? Yes. Yes it is. But that's not what Linux is for. It's for real work environments where 1) people are on staff whose job is to take the day or two to work through that setup process and 2) it is very rare that you have more than 1 or 2 machine types around so you can use the same image on multiple systems.

    56. Re:Pointless by jbolden · · Score: 1

      The debian developers are a pretty good random sample of the well informed That's as good as you are going to get to unbiased statistics.

    57. Re:Pointless by raxx7 · · Score: 1

      To me, it looks like you're taking your hobby approach to work.

      If you're using professional (lack of better word) proprietary applications from Xilinx, Cadence, Mentor, Oracle, Autodesk etc, in Linux you should do it on a supported operative system version: RHEL or SLES.
      Of course, if you're running in Windows is fundamentally the same situation. Usually, application developers target and support only a few version version of Windows.
      Eg, check https://www.cadence.com/rl/Resources/release_info/Supported_Platforms_Matrix.pdf

      If you do that, it works relatively well -- no better, no worse than Windows.
      If you go with anything else you're a) asking for trouble and b) their support won't even help you.
      Even if you run CentOS, which is 99.99% compatible with RHEL, expect their support to refuse assistance until you migrate to RHEL.

      Other than that, as your experience with Cadence shows, there is actually a large body of niche applications which is not available for Windows or where Windows is a second class citizen for the developers.
      Another example from the top of my head is ROOT, the main data analysis framework used at CERN.It's mainly developed for Linux, including the graphical user interface parts which make the plots. OS X and Windows are second and third class citizens.

      And their number seems to be increasing. For example, in the last few years Xilinx brought the Linux version of their tools to parity level with Windows (they're equally crappy now). And Altera brought their Linux tools from basic-and-expensive to almost parity with their Windows tools (there's a few glitches in the GUI).

    58. Re:Pointless by raxx7 · · Score: 2

      Someone has to design the integrated circuits that allow you to post on /.
      Be thankful we exist and suffer for you.

    59. Re:Pointless by jbolden · · Score: 1

      First off the FOSS distribution ecosystem was just simply a way of packing upstream. That's how it has always worked. What upstream FOSS software does determines what the distribution do. The distributions have a 30 year track record of trying to set standards and failing when upstream didn't support those standards. TexInfo as the universal way of handling documentation being a good example of distribution driven.

      As for the move to process management being a change in philosophy. That's true. It is not a change for Unix, most of the commercial Unixes had it. When Linux decided to go after killing off the big box Unixes they also decided to absorb their functionality. That choice was made staring around 1994 when Linux stopped being purely hobbyist.

      As for historical evidence. I don't know of any historical evidence that process management is a bad. IBM mainframes have been around longer Unixes.

    60. Re:Pointless by geoskd · · Score: 1

      Seems gamers don't have a problem with it either. Currently at 32% and climbing. But how can that be?

      MS makes damn sure that die hard gamers have no choice but to "upgrade" to windows 8. MS is not stupid, just incompetent. If a gamer gets a high end rig, they will have to have win8 on it to play tomorrows game-of-the-month fad using all their hardware can do, so they just put up with it, since it came with the rig anyway.

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    61. Re:Pointless by jbolden · · Score: 1

      They did. That happened about 4 years ago. Debian was never the target for systemd people like Pottering had little to no contact with the Debian community. But then upstream packages more associated with RHEL, SUSE... started adopting it. And it was becoming increasingly complicated for Debian to offer both. So Debian had to switch either 2 years ago, now or 2 years from now. They weighed the plussed and minus and decided on now.

    62. Re:Pointless by Art3x · · Score: 1

      The most famous example is Steve Jobs deciding that the average luser was too stupid for more than one button on their mouse.

      No, he just hated buttons, because in style he was a minimalist. To him buttons were clutter. Steve Jobs made computers for himself.

    63. Re:Pointless by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Point of order: OSX is not a 'desktop Unix' any more than Android is a 'Mobile Unix.'

      Neither is a Unix.

    64. Re:Pointless by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      You could always suffer more and try to use gEDA.

    65. Re:Pointless by raxx7 · · Score: 2

      You need to get out more.

      Most servers run on Windows or Linux, mainly in the form of RHEL and SLES. Anything else tends to mean the hardware and software providers don't support you, which can be quite inconvenient.
      Outside hobby servers, the number of servers using BSD or unsupported Linux distros (eg, I run Debian on personal systems) are a minority.

      When dealing with systems with more custom hardware designs, things get varied. Cray XT6's compute nodes run a lightweight Linux installation, while IBM's BlueGene compute nodes run a custom OS with is only a few thousand lines of code.
      But supercomputers we'd call clusters usually run RHEL or SLES or derivative with some add-ons. Comparing with BSDs is non-sense.

      Among embedded systems with a multi-tasking memory protected OS, the most common sightings are QNX, VxWorks and Linux [full GNU/Linux, Android, WebOS, etc].
      I can't recall the last time I saw a shipping product with NetBSD, actually. Despite it's fame for portability, NetBSD has been trailing Linux for a while and it lacks support for a number of modern embedded platforms. From the top of my head, there's no NetBSD support for AVR32, NIOS or Blaze architectures..
      I don't think there's working support for FPGAs with embedded ARM CPUs either.

    66. Re:Pointless by sjames · · Score: 1

      If it was XP, you can go fuck yourself.

      FOADIIF.

      But no, it was not XP.

      Given that games are normally full screen and do their own thing for the UI, that would tend to make the Windows UI shortcomings less relevant.

    67. Re:Pointless by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      "There is and was no need for systemd." - if there was no need, it wouldn't exist or if it existed and wasn't needed, it wouldn't be implemented.

      Why do you think Ubuntu are replacing their "systemd type" Upstart with systemd, they obviously see it as a better implementation of Upstart and Ubuntu are the leaders in writing stuff on their own that no-one else wants to use.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    68. Re:Pointless by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      For certain values of 'failure.'

      Straighten your necktie now, dude.

    69. Re:Pointless by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Web servers run on top of the Internet.

      Saying they 'run the Internet' is like saying kitchen sinks run your plumbing system.

    70. Re: Pointless by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      nicely put. they read a heading or a line and make an assumption on how things work, they don't do any research before they start typing junk.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    71. Re:Pointless by grcumb · · Score: 1

      First off the FOSS distribution ecosystem was just simply a way of packing upstream. That's how it has always worked. What upstream FOSS software does determines what the distribution do.

      I'll grant you that the upstream developers often have the upper hand, but distros do have a role to play in adjudicating the popularity contests that inevitably arise when you've got competing products.

      But I don't want to over-emphasise that. You're right that distros are sometimes circumscribed in terms of options. This is pretty much exactly why Debian moved when it did. If I understand correctly, they saw the writing on the wall—that GNOME was aligning and integrating with systemd—and decided to walk before they were forced to run.

      The distributions have a 30 year track record of trying to set standards and failing when upstream didn't support those standards. TexInfo as the universal way of handling documentation being a good example of distribution driven.

      Well to be fair, standards is a bit of a special case. But yes, you're right about that. Largely.

      As for the move to process management being a change in philosophy. That's true. It is not a change for Unix, most of the commercial Unixes had it.

      You mean managed processes in an operating system, right, and not systems development process management?

      The departure that I spoke of was not from one particular init system to another. I was speaking of the move from heterogeneity to homogeneity. Poettering's goal is unification. Systemd is simply one means to that end. Read his blog for more about his grand design.

      When Linux decided to go after killing off the big box Unixes they also decided to absorb their functionality.

      I'd dispute that. I don't think there ever was a decision to kill off big box Unix. Nor do I think there has been (until quite recently) any particularly concerted, coordinated effort to replicate the kind of functionality typically seen in mainframes and minis.

      As for historical evidence. I don't know of any historical evidence that process management is a bad.

      Managed processes are not intrinsically bad. But systemd is, because it's of questionable quality and design, and it's developed by people who treat dissent as enmity. Which is very much a Sin Of The (Unix) Father's that we, apparently, have failed to learn from.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    72. Re:Pointless by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      keep on dreaming

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    73. Re:Pointless by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      glad you like cross-platform software. systemd will give you cross-distro system software so the config of the system will be standard on all systemd based distros

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    74. Re:Pointless by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      repeating your post doesn;t make it any smarter

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    75. Re:Pointless by ratboy666 · · Score: 1

      First, what does Stallman have to do with Linux?

      Second, what (damned) drivers do you think need writing?

      Thirdly, what laptop required 5 hours of "Googling" to get sound work?

        Fourthly, what alternative to systemd would you like to see?

      What was your point?
       

      --
      Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
    76. Re:Pointless by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

      Some of us draw the line at typing in our circuits by hand into command-line Spice. Layout and such will be done on a nice GUI on whatever platform it runs on.

    77. Re:Pointless by ahodgson · · Score: 2

      My servers run 100% software that I can get and modify the source code for when required. I'd say he's done a great job.

    78. 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.

    79. Re:Pointless by windwalkr · · Score: 1

      Point of order: OSX is not a 'desktop Unix' ..

      http://unix.stackexchange.com/...

      It is, even if you don't like it. You can of course redefine "UNIX" to be something other than what the trademark owners say it is, but then it's just your opinion and other people can have equally valid opposing opinions.

    80. Re:Pointless by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

      > 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.

      Fair point so far.

      > This sort of behaviour is exactly why projects like a Linux distro, or god forbid GNU/Hurd, never make it to mainstream software.

      WTF? No it isn't it. That does not even begin to make sense.

      > 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,

      Why? How does Stallman's existance hurt anything?

      > 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.

      WTF? I don't spend 5 hours of googling to get a laptop soundcard to work, and I have installed Linux countless times. As for the advice to "write some damned drivers" yeah, right, every PC user knows how to do that, right?

      > 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.

      Why should anybody have to? Debian 7 was great, fast and stable. Why is this systemd crap being pushed on us? Why puke all over a great system like that?

    81. Re:Pointless by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

      > "There is and was no need for systemd." - if there was no need, it wouldn't exist or if it existed and wasn't needed, it wouldn't be implemented.

      Bullshit. Why was OOXML created? Why did LibreOffice adopt it?

      Nobody needed OOXML, it's all about vendor lock-in. LibreOffice does not support OOXML because they love it.

      You want to know why Systemd is so widely accepted? Read this:

      >>

      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.

      https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/11/16/301

    82. Re:Pointless by hitmark · · Score: 1

      I find myself reminded of a recent-ish article where someone tried to install Ubuntu on a Lenovo workstation, and found that the UEFI would only accept two partion labels. That was Windows and RHEL. It would happily boot Ubuntu when the label was changed to RHEL, and things works just as well, but it does make one stop and wonder about the position RH holds these days...

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    83. Re:Pointless by hitmark · · Score: 1

      Not just computers. Supposedly the ipod shipped with a equalizer tuned for Jobs aging hearing.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    84. Re:Pointless by hitmark · · Score: 1
      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    85. Re:Pointless by Microlith · · Score: 1

      start by getting rid of Stallman

      What would this accomplish, other than be a silly attempt at silencing someone you don't like?

      write some damned drivers

      Go tell the hardware vendors to do that.

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

      Funny, I haven't had issues with sound in ages. Perhaps you haven't used Linux in the past 10 years?

    86. Re:Pointless by Microlith · · Score: 2

      No they aren't.

      Rather, the anti-systemd crowd is making up stories about the advocates, slinging vitriol and hatred, and engaging in pretty much any sort of abuse they can engage in towards the systemd developers.

      I have seen few rational, logical, unemotional criticisms of systemd and lots and logs of reactionary bullshit.

    87. Re:Pointless by hitmark · · Score: 2

      At this point init is a distraction.

      At present time systemd cotains code for:

      DHCP client
      DNS client
      Cron replacement
      Firewall management
      Inetd
      Network management
      Logind
      Udev

      And likely a fair bit more that i forget.

      All of those however only really function if systemd is running as pid.

      And frankly i think the logind element is what got people sitting up and paying attenotion. I certainly did. Because it replaced consolekit. And while consolekit could live on top of any odd init, logind is wedded to systemd as pid1.

      And quite a number of freedesktop systems that previously relied on consolekit to privide session and seat tracking now depend on logind. Thus if you want to get your external drive mounting (and who knows what else) working, you need logind, and thus you need to be running systemd as init.

      Turtles all the bleeping way down...

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    88. Re:Pointless by hitmark · · Score: 1

      Hard to debug in the sense that rather than having scripts that call commands i can run manually to see how they behave, it is all now dbus messages bouncing back and forth inside dbus-daemon.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    89. Re:Pointless by cyrano.mac · · Score: 1

      If you really think that is what systemd does, you will be very disappointed...

    90. Re: Pointless by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      That's because Sun, Apple, and Ubuntu wrote new init systems, while systemd was always about system management with init being only one of its minor functions. Something that has been missing from Linux for a long time.

    91. Re:Pointless by gweihir · · Score: 1

      1) Then just go away and eat your industry pre-packaged dog-food like a good little worker bee.
      2) The alternate init system does not need to be made. It is in place at the moment. We are protesting a downgrade.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    92. Re:Pointless by gweihir · · Score: 2

      That tired old lie again...

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    93. Re:Pointless by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. Some people with special needs may find it convenient, but that is all there is to it.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    94. Re:Pointless by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed. Making Linux like Windows is a dead-end, because Windows already exists _and_ you are bringing in all the Problems that Windows has.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    95. Re:Pointless by dave420 · · Score: 1

      21 years 30 years...

    96. Re:Pointless by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      Yes. Welcome to parallel programming and all serious software development since the 1980s. It's complicated. Get used to it or stop worrying about it.

    97. Re:Pointless by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      Mint also works just fine with systemd, the biggest problem was needing an mdm.service file (which is now in MDM head i believe anyway).

    98. Re:Pointless by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Slackware is a Linux distribution created by Patrick Volkerding in 1993

      Nope, not 30 years.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    99. Re:Pointless by sjames · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it's because you're averting your eyes. A pro-systemd presentation shows Tux as a borg. Any questions?

    100. Re:Pointless by devent · · Score: 1

      I think my description is accurate, servers do run the Internet. Servers provide the services of the Internet, like web, email, chat, etc. From where would you get those services if there would be no servers?

      --
      http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
    101. Re:Pointless by NickFortune · · Score: 1

      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.

      I'll give it a shot

      See, traditionally, this isn't how things are done in the Linux world. Generally, if you have a snazzy idea for an init system (for example) what you'd do is offer it as an option and let users decide.

      The idea is to minimise the changes that will be made by the new system (other than improvements to the boot system). That way people who are interested in the new technology can try it and report benefits, problems, make suggestions and, if the new software really provides tangible improvements, more people will start using it and in time it'll probably end up as the default init system on a good many distros. Even then, you'd expect other init-systems to be available as options.

      What doesn't work so well on the whole is taking your new init system, declaring that anyone who can't see its benefits is either an idiot or a luddite, and bringing political pressure to bear to get distros to adopt your baby as the default choice. Especially at the same time as trying to tie it into as many other pieces of software as possible thus making it very difficult to replace it with any of the alternatives.

      That goes doubly when, as is the case with systemd, we have an immature solution under heavy development, with no firm specification, and developers who have a reputation for being less than helpful. This isn't Microsoft. Solutions don't get invented by some privileged few and adopted because Word comes down from On High. They get adopted because a lot of people use them and find them useful.

      And any time it looks like someone is trying to subvert that process ... well, it makes a lot of people skittish. And in those cases, I'd just as soon not have the offending package on my computers.

      If systemd is as good as its supporters suggest, then it'll become widely adopted without all this ballyhoo. Conversely, if it's failings are severe enough that it can't gain widespread acceptance without politicising the entire debate, then I don't want it anywhere near me.

      --
      Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
    102. Re:Pointless by DrXym · · Score: 1
      The best way to get Linux accepted by the mainstream is to deliver a modern, stable, user friendly, forgiving, slick desktop which doesn't require a PHD to operate, doesn't require a terminal to be opened (ever), and offers the functionality people bought their damned computer (or tablet) for in the first place - word processing, games, browsing, streaming video etc.

      The problem with the Linux community is that never seems to sink in. I watched this same thing play over and over through the years. Criticize Linux or a part thereof and the wagons circle. Suggest that an app or desktop isn't usable and the RTFM brigade leaps out to justify the brokenness. Propose or implement change and watch the reactions become outright hostile. This is most obvious with recent changes to SysV to systemd and X11 to Wayland but it's nothing new.

      The Linux community can be its own worst enemy sometimes. It's like some like Linux being a niche and have the siege mentality to go with it.

    103. Re:Pointless by DrXym · · Score: 1

      I expect most people if asked, if they wanted their computer to book to desktop in 15 seconds instead of 30 seconds (for example) with would pick the former. So yes they desire what systemd gives them even if they have no idea what systemd is.

    104. Re:Pointless by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      https://devuan.org/

      But don't let facts stand in the way of your ranting.
      It takes time to bring a fork to release-ready state. It would also be a lot better NOT to have to fork the whole distro just to avoid one package you don't like.

      I don't have to switch distros if I would rather use nginx than apache for a specific job. There should be no reason I have to switch distros if I would rather dhcpcd than systemd's dhcp client, or indeed if I would rather use upstart than systemd.
      Ironically debian has had support for different init systems and switching between them for years - systemd is UNIQUE in being the first and only time they added another init system option which removed the ability to choose NOT to use it and use one of the others instead.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    105. Re:Pointless by hitmark · · Score: 1

      Egg on my face indeed...

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    106. Re:Pointless by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      On the other hand if you're running a recent system, lets say a laptop. Forget about having a smooth install unless you buy very specific models of specific brands

      How does this distinguish Linux from Windows? Hint: It doesn't, at all. I've had to slipstream drivers into Windows several times in order to get the Windows install to even see my storage devices. Is it realistic to expect the average user to do that? It was barely realistic to expect them to stick a floppy in the drive during an XP install, if at all.

      To give you an idea, I installed Debian on my laptop and it took two days to get it up and running.

      It took two days of installing various drivers to get the video working properly on my Gateway LT32 under anything but Vista. If you are going to make a salient point, please do so. The fact is that installing Windows on many systems is a nightmare, and if the system doesn't explicitly say it's made for your chosen Windows version then all bets are off.

      While I must admit I still run 7 on my home systems,

      Either Windows 8 is better or it isn't. If it is, why aren't you running it? An upgrade is reasonable. If is isn't, then why defend it? Just let it go.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    107. Re:Pointless by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Note that RedHat does not actually develop Linux

      They write much of the code that people think of as Linux. So, yes they do.

      I have *never* found a piece of PC hardware that did not have Windows drivers. Not ever.

      My [modest] computing empire is sown with the seeds of hardware which went out of support under Windows. My scanner has no drivers newer than for Windows XP, so it showed up at a yard sale. Likewise, my slide scanner, wacom tablet, my prior laser printer (a personal HP which failed hard) and indeed a whole big pile of the other stuff around me.

      The most offensive items on this list are scanners, because year after year they ("they" being scanner manufacturers) use the same protocols (with minor differences) to talk to their scanners. And every so often, they just drop support for a bunch of the old scanners from the driver. I understand why, but it's a big part of the reason why Linux driver support is actually superior to Windows. Until the driver actually causes someone a problem, it sticks around and maybe even gets some patches.

      In fact, much of the shiny new hardware works great on Linux. Notably, nVidia desktop GPUs. There was a time when a new GPU would be unsupported for months (like my 240GT) but those days are now over. So yeah, you still have to be careful when shopping for a USB3 card. But most windows users won't install one of those anyway. And most people won't have to, because by now they're getting it onboard. Only nerds who keep hardware around for eternities install addon cards. And old skinflints, of course. I love those guys, but their yard sales are always hilarious when you get to the electronics. Buy their tools instead.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    108. Re:Pointless by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      i'm really not sure what can be done about this, if anything.

      Fork! Fork it! Fork it often, and fork it hard.

      If this software is so complex that it requires a genius to understand it, then either you need to kiss that genius' ass, or something needs to be done to make it simpler to work on.

      The truth is that it's a really hard problem. Even Microsoft has fallen down on this job of late. There's no doubt stuff that works in wine that doesn't work on Windows 7, let alone 8. I don't want to get into a discussion about ratios here, I'm just saying that it's a hard job that even the experts in windows can get wrong.

      Also, who's going to do it? Our society is designed to keep those people crack-a-lackin' on something that gives MBAs hard-ons.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    109. Re: Pointless by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I bet it is not a desired behaviour from Redhat point of view to allow easy debugging, as they are in business of selling the system administration and support.

      Debian's default console output is output from initscripts. RHEL's default console output is a thermometer.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    110. Re:Pointless by rowdyjumper · · Score: 1

      ... but they sure do reveal it's righteousness.

    111. Re:Pointless by Archwyrm · · Score: 1

      Huh. I guess I should play the lottery. I seem to "get lucky" every time I install Linux. Whether it be Debian or Arch Linux it just works. Over many years. On various hardware.

      --
      Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power. -- Mussolini
    112. Re:Pointless by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      > First, what does Stallman have to do with Linux?

      The core of "free software" philosophy, and much of the early work, was due to Richard M. Stallman. The Free Software Foundation, which he founded and which does very good work for "free as in speech" software, maintains all of the software at www.gnu.org. This includes.

                              autoconf
                              bash
                              binutils (with command like "ls", "rm", and "mv")
                              glibc
                              gcc
                              make
                              tar
                              wget

      In order to _build_ the Linux kernel and much of the free software and open source software in the world, you need those tools or tools very much like them, maintained separately. Maintaining compilers, particularly, is filled with danger. I'm not aware of any Linux distribution that does not rely on "gcc".

      Do look up the early history of Linux: while Mr. Stallman can be aggravating, his political and technical concerns seem well founded and have often proven prescient in their concerns for legal and technical abuse by software companies.

    113. Re:Pointless by Dimwit · · Score: 1

      I have not seen a laptop in close to a decade that didn't work 100% out of the box with Linux. Ubuntu on my laptop actually supported more of the hardware than OEM Windows did without having to find third-party drivers on some website. I remember having to manually configure my sound card with Linux, but I don't remember the last time I did it; it's been at least a decade if not more.

      So yeah, the old objections to Linux are, to use an appropriately old term, FUD.

      --
      ...but it's being eaten...by some...Linux or something...
    114. Re:Pointless by Lisias · · Score: 1

      Ever realised that it might actually be desired?

      Yes. For 15 minutes, until I googled for articles explaining why systemd was a good idea, and had a hard time finding a convincing one.

      Seriously, if you want to know if a new EFI system will be better to your pimped new car, you should ask people that earns their money by using it (racers), not car sellers or street users.

      --
      Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
    115. Re:Pointless by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      No one is forcing distros to adopt it.

    116. Re:Pointless by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      "Bullshit. Why was OOXML created? Why did LibreOffice adopt it? Nobody needed OOXML, it's all about vendor lock-in. LibreOffice does not support OOXML because they love it." - did you ask them or did you just make an assumption?

      as for reading that posting, whats the point, its just an opinion with no facts backing it up

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    117. Re:Pointless by jbolden · · Score: 1

      FOSS predates Linux by decades. The GNU project itself is 7 years older than Linux and came into a world where FOSS software existed.

    118. Re:Pointless by jbolden · · Score: 1

      I'll grant you that the upstream developers often have the upper hand, but distros do have a role to play in adjudicating the popularity contests that inevitably arise when you've got competing products.

      Sure they do. If there are 2 competing standards the distributions can play an important role. Like they did the X.org fork away from XFree86 or earlier Emacs vs. X-Emacs. And like they tried to do when there 4 options for init: upstart, systemd, initd, OpenRC. But when there is only one viable path forward and upstream is unified they have not fought it successfully.

      But I don't want to over-emphasise that. You're right that distros are sometimes circumscribed in terms of options. This is pretty much exactly why Debian moved when it did. If I understand correctly, they saw the writing on the wall—that GNOME was aligning and integrating with systemd—and decided to walk before they were forced to run

      It wasn't just Gnome. Gnome alone Debian could have handled. Debian deves were looking at 500 packages directly or indirectly introducing dependencies during the life of Jessie. And while they could have held out for Jessie the next version the breakage would have been much more painful as you put it walk before they were forced to run.

      You mean managed processes in an operating system, right, and not systems development process management?

      Yes the operating system (or infrastructure management system) managing processes on individual boxes.

      The departure that I spoke of was not from one particular init system to another. I was speaking of the move from heterogeneity to homogeneity. Poettering's goal is unification. Systemd is simply one means to that end. Read his blog for more about his grand design.

      We agree. Poettering ... want a more homogeneous environment. But, and this is important, so do most application programmers. They are sick of supporting heterogeneity's complexity.

      I don't think there ever was a decision to kill off big box Unix. Nor do I think there has been (until quite recently) any particularly concerted, coordinated effort to replicate the kind of functionality typically seen in mainframes and minis.

      I'd point you to things like aggressively recruiting the commercial DBMS to Linux in the mid 1990s. Why do that if not to go after big bog Unix turf? As far as replace functionality of mainframe and minis, I'd give clustering and virtualization as two examples from much earlier.

      But systemd is, because it's of questionable quality and design

      I don't see how the adhoc solutions that exist under initd are better quality and design. That's been beaten to death but the heterogeneity you are arguing for led to solutions where there wasn't proper attention paid. What existed wasn't good.

      by people who treat dissent as enmity

      I don't see that. Debian was never the target of the systemd crowd. They had few if any connections to Debian. The debate within Debian was not between systemd proponents for Debian not the actual systemd funders / developers. We know the funders and developers didn't care very much what Debian did.

    119. Re:Pointless by sjames · · Score: 1

      When that stopped turning up bugs, they moved it to Stable.

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      AFAIK it still can't deal with actually booting all the way up with a degraded (but functional) disk array.

    120. Re:Pointless by grcumb · · Score: 1

      But systemd is, because it's of questionable quality and design

      I don't see how the adhoc solutions that exist under initd are better quality and design. That's been beaten to death but the heterogeneity you are arguing for led to solutions where there wasn't proper attention paid. What existed wasn't good.

      I won't dispute that. To suggest, as some have, that different is necessarily better than that dog's breakfast is another thing entirely, though. And that's where I rankle.

      by people who treat dissent as enmity

      I don't see that. Debian was never the target of the systemd crowd. They had few if any connections to Debian. The debate within Debian was not between systemd proponents for Debian not the actual systemd funders / developers. We know the funders and developers didn't care very much what Debian did.

      I meant that in a wider context than just Debian. It's abundantly clear that several of the developers at the heart of systemd simply do not play well with the other children, and reflexively treat dissent as opposition for its own sake, and use that excuse to ignore valid objections. I think you're probably right that Debian is merely collateral damage in their campaign, but I also think it's quite fortuitous for them. And let's face it: Debian is the refuge of a certain kind of sysadmin/developer who is conservative in nature and curmudgeonly in attitude. They're not the sole inhabitants of Debian-land, but they're a significant subset of the population.

      Hence the crescendo of noise when Debian announced the move.

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    121. Re: Pointless by Celarent+Darii · · Score: 1

      just 300k lines of code.

      Actually, that is wrong. Systemd is well over 550k lines of code, and close to 1500 files.

      There are operating systems with lower counts of lines of code. Even the entire Space Shuttle was run on less than that, and Minix is 3 orders of magnitude smaller for the entire operating system. Here is a nice graphic

      The other init systems are much more modest. Even upstart is only around 40k lines of code. The source code of launchd for instance is very compact.

      Furthermore, systemd is not only huge, it is entirely unportable. All the other init systems have been ported to other unix systems because they actually preserve POSIX. Even Apple, who has a tendancy to do proprietary things, has made their launchd portable to other systems. Systemd doesn't even care about POSIX compatibility in the slightest, and even detests this standard.

      All those complaints about Windows being bloated are actually nothing compared to Red Hat Linux now, which has more code in its INIT system than the original WIndows 3.1 release.

      In short it is a bloated project that will probably die under its own weight.

    122. Re:Pointless by Celarent+Darii · · Score: 2

      That is complete bullshit. Have you even looked at the source code of launchd and systemd?

      Launchd actually is POSIX compatible which is why it has already been ported to FreeBSD. Systemd does not even consider POSIX compatability something to be desired.

      If anything, porting GNOME will be a royal pain in the ass now. In fact many opensource projects like OpenBSD are writing shim layers to insure "systemd comptability" in order to facility cross compilation of Gnome Desktop.

      When open source projects have to provide an emulation layer for an init system in order to port open source software there is something terribly wrong.

    123. Re:Pointless by jbolden · · Score: 1

      I meant that in a wider context than just Debian. It's abundantly clear that several of the developers at the heart of systemd simply do not play well with the other children, and reflexively treat dissent as opposition for its own sake

      I don't think it is clear. They work for a corporation that has a few target strategic directions. People who disagree with RedHat's direction for Linux are kinda irrelevant they are not just dissenters. So for example if I disagree with congress immigration bill and march that's dissent. If I wanted to form a single state with the USA and Mexico that may be a valid opinion but it has so little support that it isn't even dissent in a political context. Dissent would be people who agree with RedHat's goals but not with systemd's approach. And those have been listened to.

      The Debian anti-systemd crowd is IMHO:
      1) Really ignorant about the direction of the industry and too involved in their own use cases
      2) About 7 years to late to be having this debate. The time for this discussion was around 2007-8 when the "should Linux do something like launchd" discussion was happening.
      3) No people who buy large number of commercial OS licenses or expensive support contracts.

      Debian is the refuge of a certain kind of sysadmin/developer who is conservative in nature and curmudgeonly in attitude.

      I agree. But the fact that they aren't getting what they want on someone else's dime is what is pissing them off. Linux has allowed them to avoid what most admins get where the OS company says, "our direction is X. Lead, follow or call our competitor and get out of the way".

    124. Re:Pointless by medlefsen · · Score: 1

      Yeah but that's life man. Every single distribution is made by people who thought other people might like what they like. For a while, you were lucky enough to have similar preferences to some of them, but then you diverged. I'm sorry but that's just how it goes. There are distributions that don't use systemd but maybe someday there won't be except for tiny, poorly maintained ones. I guess that sucks for you but it is what it is.

      For the record though, that's not forcing anything down your throat; that's other people making their own choices about their projects, and that happens to effect you.

      The way I see it you have two choices: Learn to like or at least deal with systemd, which, let's be frank, isn't actually that radically different from other init systems, or put forward some real arguments for why something else is better. See who you can convince and maybe you'll get lucky and there will be enough support to maintain quality non-systemd distributions well into the future.

    125. Re:Pointless by medlefsen · · Score: 1

      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.

      I'll give it a shot

      See, traditionally, this isn't how things are done in the Linux
      world. Generally, if you have a snazzy idea for an init system (for
      example) what you'd do is offer it as an option and let users decide.

      This just isn't true. Ubuntu didn't offer users a choice with upstart, and other distributions never seriously offered an alternative to sys v init. Distributions offer choices when it's convenient/possible. Most distros don't offer alternative kernel builds because it's a pain to do and they feel it's not worth the effort. Most (all?) distros don't bother supporting the BSD coreutils in place of GNU (and in fact many packages depend on them being the GNU versions). Once again, it's not impossible it's just not felt worth the effort.

      It takes real effort to support multiple init systems, so the question becomes, is it worth it? The people actually doing the work in many distributions don't think it is. You can either work to change that by putting in your own time/money, try to convince them that it is worth the time, or just use systemd.

      If systemd is as good as its supporters suggest, then it'll become widely adopted without all this ballyhoo. Conversely, if it's failings are severe enough that it can't gain widespread acceptance without politicising the entire debate, then I don't want it anywhere near me.

      This is exactly what is happening. Distribution maintainers are choosing to use systemd because they find it the best of the options available. Nobody is strong arming anyone as far as I can see. Also, once again, the only people I see making this political are those who seem to find systemd emotionally repulsive. All of the arguments I've seen in favor of systemd are purely of the "it works better and has more features" variety.

    126. Re:Pointless by jbolden · · Score: 1

      systemd is not merely an init system. It is a process management system. Initialization is just one of the states that it manages. The fact that you don't understand the distinction is a start to what is terribly wrong.

    127. Re:Pointless by ratboy666 · · Score: 1

      From the post I replied to:

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

      Stallman doesn't have much to do with Linux anymore. Yes, Redhat had a lot to do with egcs, and gcc is the primary compiler.

      But my reply still stands.

      I think the post I was replying to was... um... lacking critical arguments.

      --
      Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
    128. Re: Pointless by bingoUV · · Score: 1

      From brief overview the arguments it does everything is fud

      fud, as well as strawman. GP didn't say it does everything, GP said it takes over all of system management.

      SystemD is no different than the other event driven alternatives

      4583 package depend on it. Much much fewer depended on other "event driven alternatives". So you are wrong. http://lkcl.net/reports/removi...

      That is my answer to the grandparents argument there was no need for change

      Another strawman. They didn't say there was no need for change. They said "for many if not most an alternative to init was neither needed nor desired".

      --
      Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
    129. Re:Pointless by NickFortune · · Score: 1

      It takes real effort to support multiple init systems, so the question becomes, is it worth it?

      Define "worth". I mean, can you put a dollar value on not fragmenting the whole Linux community, for instance?

      The people actually doing the work in many distributions don't think it is.

      Some of the people. The Debian decision was only carried by the chairman's casting vote. So in that case at least people doing the actual work seem pretty damn undecided to me.

      You can either work to change that by putting in your own time/money, try to convince them that it is worth the time, or just use systemd.

      *Yawn* Or I can use Gentoo or Slackware or (pretty soon) Devuan. Currently I'm using Gentoo and a systemd-free Wheezy. I do hope you're not going to tell me that disqualifies me from having an opinion here?

      If systemd is as good as its supporters suggest, then it'll become widely adopted without all this ballyhoo. Conversely, if it's failings are severe enough that it can't gain widespread acceptance without politicising the entire debate, then I don't want it anywhere near me.

      This is exactly what is happening. Distribution maintainers are choosing to use systemd because they find it the best of the options available.

      Well, except for the whole "without all this ballyhoo", since that is definitely happening. And without the implied unanimity of opinion on the part of the developers: see the previous point about Debian. So, you know, no that isn't exactly what's happening. Sorry.

      Also, once again, the only people I see making this political are those who seem to find systemd emotionally repulsive.

      It takes two to make for a political debate. We can argue about who started it if you like, but it still takes two. Like the two of us, for instance. Now personally I don't think that either of us are aguing based on primarily emotional or aesthetic grounds. Of course, we can talk about that a bit more if you want.

      But if you want a purely technical argument, immature software still under heavy development, lacking an interface spec should be sufficient for most reasonable people.

      All of the arguments I've seen in favor of systemd are purely of the "it works better and has more features" variety.

      Meh. There's also been plenty along the lines of "systemd just works and if you're too stupid to see it then that's your problem because it's already been decided by people far more intelligent than you so just sit down and shut up already".

      If fact, absent the rudeness, that's pretty much the substance of your own argument, if you don't mind me saying so.

      --
      Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
    130. Re:Pointless by solidraven · · Score: 1

      Funny you should say that, I've talked to somebody who plays a substantial part in the Debian Linux project recently and he didn't seem to hate systemd at all, in fact he said something along the lines of "finally that damned script mess is on its way out". So before you say "Debian developers" I'd love to hear some names...

    131. Re: Pointless by solidraven · · Score: 1

      Having code doesn't mean its compiled into every executable or even run for that matter. That's something people don't seem to get about programming these days.

    132. Re:Pointless by solidraven · · Score: 1

      Stop going on a crusade against binary drivers then. Not a single manufacturer will show their internal hardware architecture and throw it online without being absolutely sure a competitor won't be able to use it in their reverse engineering attempts.And if you have the driver code you can usually already start figuring things out, so yes its a major issue.

    133. Re:Pointless by jbolden · · Score: 1

      I lost you. You were asking for statistics and I was saying that we have statistics for Debian Developers. Now you are asking for names, names of who for what?

    134. Re:Pointless by davydagger · · Score: 2

      I suggest if there is ever an event nearby where he speaks that you talk to him for half a minute, lets see how much of your view of said person is left standing. He's an annoying jerk who lives in the eighties who didn't yet get the memo that not everyone is spying on him or is strictly interested in what he thinks. But lets not get into detail about this one.

      I didn't think you got the memo that they are spying on you. I mean we can pretend the snowden leak didn't happen, or be coy about the extent, or the fact that bits and pieces of been leaked for years, many times appearing on slashdot. We can pretend that he hasn't been the victim of a massive character attack against him.

      You don't need a person like that to stand up for your principles, if you must find somebody to stand up for them I'd say go for Linus. He might be a jerk, but he's not an obnoxious paranoid unreasonable person.

      Guess what, the world is full of jerks. Studies conclude that rude people are more honest. I don't find Stallman paranoid one bit, most of his "paranoia" over the years has been proven justified.

      I think the real issue is you simply don't like what he has to say.

      I have yet to see evidence of this statement. Every computer I install linux on, I must point out this is on recent hardware and often laptops, I usually end up having to fiddle with the driver settings because some person somewhere decided that having the default settings automatically loaded into configuration files was a bad idea.

      my reaction has been just the opposite, drivers for all but the most obscure devices simply load themselves with no interaction. Except the full performance video card drivers. Thats as easy as installing a package and restarting.

      Keep in mind the Windows driver figures out these things by itself, mostly because it doesn't have to take into account 50000 different possible locations for said configuration file.

      I've always had driver hell on windows. Half the devices don't show on install, god help you if the ethernet driver doesn't work, and you can't find the install disk. Then you get to the 50,000 diffrent versions of the driver, the buggy piece of shit that comes with windows, or is it driver on the manufactures website which is poorly translated from cantoneese, into mandarin, into russian, into english, that took you 3 hours of searching to find because the company either merged, went out of business, or obsoleted the driver.

      Also, drivers don't have configuration files in linux, they are kernel modules, most of them come with the kernel and are located in /usr/lib/modules/, and linux/udev simply loads them when it detects them, occationally you need to modprobe them and list them in a plain text file in /etc/modules-load.d

      have fun also uninstalling all

      Pretty sure they aren't.

      oh, well you reminded me of someone else. Someone with the same strawmen, and bad arguments

      Anyways, point still stands. I'd rather have people like Stallman than people like you. There are many reasons to be concerned about privacy, and its been proven that closed modules like DRM, and various phone home utilies exist, track users, and many times leave personal data out in the open, or on company servers, where identity theft is one of the fastest growing, hardest to catch crimes there is right now. We have a hostile government that doesn't give a shit, because they use the same methods to spy on is, and it makes it easy.

      We don't need people who don't take Freedom, openess, security and saftey seriously. We also don't need people who are quick to make political compromises to fit in with powerful people, at the expense of the general populace.

      We don't need "year of the Linux desktop". It does not benefit either GNU or Linux, we simply do not need it. It would be nice sure, but its simply not essential. More important is taking a stand and explaining to the rest of society why we do, rather than what.

    135. Re:Pointless by davydagger · · Score: 1

      On servers its not uncommon

      majority share, trend is going towards linux. All the big companies run linux webservers, exception of netflix for FreeBSD.

      On super computers its usually a heavily customized version, you could just as well use BSD as starting point to be honest.

      [citation please]

      On smartphones it has been so heavily modified that you wouldn't recognize it if you start taking a closer look at it.

      nope actually. all the android kernel patches have been mainlined since 3.4. What you mean is that they don't run the GNU userland, but instead their own userland based on BIONIC C lib, and their own custom version of java. I trust you understand the diffrence between kernel and userspace. It becomes more aparant when you run custom roms.

      Now if the default worked I'd love to do that, sadly it rarely does.

      if you're using ubuntu or mint it does, simply slip the install disk and bam.

    136. Re:Pointless by solidraven · · Score: 1

      majority share, trend is going towards linux. All the big companies run linux webservers, exception of netflix for FreeBSD.

      If I got a penny for everytime I run into windows systems... Even saw a few very very old netware servers recently. Anyway people make the incorrect assumption "servers" equals "web servers" sadly, and then indeed linux has the majority market share. But a lot of software used in an industrial setting simply does not work on Linux/BSD/..., or turn-key systems are bought which quite often run Windows. Or god-forbid: HP-UX, though that one is actually fairly nice if you have some time to sit down with it.

      [citation please]

      Yes, because things like Cray Linux with customized micro kernels don't exist... Its not because they say "oh hey it uses ... linux" in the top 500 list that it's a standard build. It'd be like claiming that China's latest super computer runs Ubuntu. It might be based on it, but you can be pretty damn sure it was optimized. You don't make a multi-million investment to then squander it away with inefficient resource usage.

      nope actually. all the android kernel patches have been mainlined since 3.4. What you mean is that they don't run the GNU userland, but instead their own userland based on BIONIC C lib, and their own custom version of java. I trust you understand the diffrence between kernel and userspace. It becomes more aparant when you run custom roms.

      Keep on dreaming. If you were to run a fully unoptimized kernel on a phone you'd drain the battery in less than 2 hours most likely. (Please note: I do not consider compiler conditionals the same code. because you could really just put two complete different versions in there and switch between them with conditional constructs) People seem to forget how big of a deal scheduling and power management is on mobile devices. The battery capacity hasn't increased that much over the past years, the power management on the other hand has made huge steps forward.

      if you're using ubuntu or mint it does, simply slip the install disk and bam.

      You wish.

    137. Re:Pointless by solidraven · · Score: 1

      Are we talking about the folks who put together Debian, or about the people who write software who happen to work on Debian?

    138. Re:Pointless by jbolden · · Score: 1

      The Debian developers for whom we have statistics are the people who put together Debian. But there is a lot of overlap most Debian packages are maintained by someone closely associated with the group that writes the software that words on Debian.

    139. Re:Pointless by davydagger · · Score: 1

      The fact that you think they take a huge interest in what an average person has to say scares me more than the fact that they bother to go over everything they can get their hands on. Also realize some (a.k.a. most) don't live in the US, and we actually think about who we vote on.

      implying I'm stalking you because I've taken the time to respond to your arguments thoughtfully and patiently. great analogy, it holds water. You've likewise seem to have equal intrest in this conversation.

      Actually I do not like what he has to say, he instantly kills any possibility of cooperation with his behaviour. His "no binary drivers" thing pretty much stops proper hardware support in its tracks.

      co-operation with who and what? The only hardware that we really loose are the high performance ATI and nVidia drivers. Everything else can easily be replaced. Guess what, if we start accepting binary blobs and stop pushing manufactures for open drivers, guess what happens to driver quality? It goes down the shitter, because some no name chineese/korean company isn't going to give a shit about "just works" on linux as much as the kernel devs.

      Funny you should say that, it took me about 10 minutes to find and download the windows drivers for everything in my latest computer. It took me about 10 hours to get an acceptable performance out of my Intel WiFi chipset on Linux though. And I sort of gave up in the end and use a cable these days

      Whats really funny is installing windows where half the devices show up as yellow ?s, and then hunting for drivers. I haven't had a problem with linux wifi in years.(since kernel 2.6.28). I never had to install a driver beyond propertiary ones, and even that is easy.

      Yes, because it totally doesn't store the parameters in a series of shell scripts that are executed at boot. *cough*

      it doesn't actually. its quite apparent you haven't spent much time really using modern GNU/Linux.

      I should point out I stopped reading at "hostile government". Guess what, you determine who's in the government. Its your own damned fault, get your head out of your ass and do something about it in the voting booth next time.

      my fault? I vote every time. Anyways, most modern studies conducted by credible(read not think tanks) sources have shown there is little correlation between voting, populist action, and policy, and there is little way to change policy at the voting both. For all intents and purposes we don't live in a democracy, other than the real base observation that they take and count votes, inclusive of many other countries which aren't real democracies.

      And this is why we can't have nice things.

      We *do* have nice things. If we let in the riff raff, the people who make $500 for in-app purchases, and then get mad about it, we won't have nice things. We don't need the year of the Linux(or GNU) desktop. its counter-intuitive. It will financially incentivise destroying everything good about linux.

      If you're vision of Linux, is a closed mess of unfree apps, vendor lock ins, pay-for-premium, spyware, but still has some underlying *NIX support, and mainstream application support, do all of us here a huge favor, and just go buy yourself a mac, and leave us alone.

      As far as the GNU/Linux desktop, most of the guts are maintened by Red Hat, Canonical, and a few other companies for the type of people who work on their servers as a day job.(which is me). It suites us fine for what it does.

    140. Re:Pointless by davydagger · · Score: 1

      If I got a penny for everytime I run into windows systems... Even saw a few very very old netware servers recently. Anyway people make the incorrect assumption "servers" equals "web servers" sadly, and then indeed linux has the majority market share. But a lot of software used in an industrial setting simply does not work on Linux/BSD/..., or turn-key systems are bought which quite often run Windows. Or god-forbid: HP-UX, though that one is actually fairly nice if you have some time to sit down with it.

      Also forgot solaris in there. Yes, there are a lot of server operating systems, and windows does hold a sizable(double digits), minority share, but linux holds a majority share, and has a double digit presence in every market but desktop. Throw in FreeBSD, and the FOSS *NIX share for servers is somewhere around ~%80

      Yes, because things like Cray Linux with customized micro kernels don't exist... Its not because they say "oh hey it uses ... linux" in the top 500 list that it's a standard build. It'd be like claiming that China's latest super computer runs Ubuntu. It might be based on it, but you can be pretty damn sure it was optimized. You don't make a multi-million investment to then squander it away with inefficient resource usage.

      I asked for a citation, not speculation. Linux is a kernel, GNU is the userland, Ubuntu is a distribution. tweaking a few install settings and adding a few extra patches does not make it "might as well be a whole new kernel", and so does not enabling things not enabled by default. Also turning on features not turned on by default does not count either. Trust me I've compiled, tweaked and patched enough Linux kernels to know this. While I certainly agree super computer kernels are tweaked, the notion "they might as well not be Linux", does not hold water. You might as well say that every Gentoo user "might as well not be using linux", because they all have custom per-machine user compile time configured kernels, which is required as part of the installation.

      Keep on dreaming. If you were to run a fully unoptimized kernel on a phone you'd drain the battery in less than 2 hours most likely. (Please note: I do not consider compiler conditionals the same code. because you could really just put two complete different versions in there and switch between them with conditional constructs) People seem to forget how big of a deal scheduling and power management is on mobile devices. The battery capacity hasn't increased that much over the past years, the power management on the other hand has made huge steps forward.

      the wake-locks and power management for android has been mainlined in Linux proper since 3.4. tweaking compile time options is fucking easy, and doesn't change the fact its the exact same kernel, and exact same code. Combined with above comment, its fairly clear you don't have a damn clue what you're talking about. Perhaps you just pick up buzzwords from read computer news.

      You wish.

      You've never actually used either ubuntu or mint in the last 5 years. Its painfully obvious. I've gotten total newbs to do it.

      You don't have the damnest clue what the fuck are you talking about.

    141. Re:Pointless by solidraven · · Score: 1

      implying I'm stalking you because I've taken the time to respond to your arguments thoughtfully and patiently. great analogy, it holds water. You've likewise seem to have equal intrest in this conversation.

      Where did I imply you stalk me? Quite frankly you're reading stuff I didn't even write.

      Also, your correlation between binary driver support and in-app purchases made me chuckle and spill my tea. If you think the only "high performance" hardware that matters is a graphics card, than I fear you have much to learn. Also, your remark about Korean electronics manufacturers is more than a bit wrong. Or are we forgetting Samsung is one of the larger contributors to the linux kernel?

      And its exactly THAT mentality about voting that makes sure nothing ever does change.

      it doesn't actually. its quite apparent you haven't spent much time really using modern GNU/Linux.

      Because /etc/modules and accompanying things really don't exist eh? *facepalm*

    142. Re:Pointless by solidraven · · Score: 1

      Also forgot solaris in there. Yes, there are a lot of server operating systems, and windows does hold a sizable(double digits), minority share, but linux holds a majority share, and has a double digit presence in every market but desktop. Throw in FreeBSD, and the FOSS *NIX share for servers is somewhere around ~%80

      I wouldn't count on it if you look at market value...

      I asked for a citation, not speculation. Linux is a kernel, GNU is the userland, Ubuntu is a distribution. tweaking a few install settings and adding a few extra patches does not make it "might as well be a whole new kernel", and so does not enabling things not enabled by default. Also turning on features not turned on by default does not count either. Trust me I've compiled, tweaked and patched enough Linux kernels to know this. While I certainly agree super computer kernels are tweaked, the notion "they might as well not be Linux", does not hold water. You might as well say that every Gentoo user "might as well not be using linux", because they all have custom per-machine user compile time configured kernels, which is required as part of the installation.

      If you want to have a semantics discussion go elsewhere, if you want to have an actual discussion I suggest you read the actual manuals for linux distributions that were "tuned" (according to your words) for super computer and high-node count clusters.

      the wake-locks and power management for android has been mainlined in Linux proper since 3.4. tweaking compile time options is fucking easy, and doesn't change the fact its the exact same kernel, and exact same code. Combined with above comment, its fairly clear you don't have a damn clue what you're talking about. Perhaps you just pick up buzzwords from read computer news.

      I suggest you compare the binaries and then return to me and dare to repeat said statement. I get it, you hate systemd, you fail to understand the concept that the same code can compile to very different binaries with a single pre-processor variable, and you don't like the fact that some people out there want productivity. Next you also claim that you don't need a configuration file to know which modules to load at boot. (I'm still staring at the /etc/modules file I have open in vi at the moment.) So I must apologize for having a hard time taking you serious. And lets not forget how you twisted my words into "you think I'm stalking you". You're a bad show man.

    143. Re:Pointless by solidraven · · Score: 1

      So you mean the same developers who decided adding it was a good idea? :P

    144. Re:Pointless by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Yes the group that voted the 2nd time. That's who we have statistics on.

    145. Re:Pointless by davydagger · · Score: 1

      If you want to have a semantics discussion go elsewhere, if you want to have an actual discussion I suggest you read the actual manuals for linux distributions that were "tuned" (according to your words) for super computer and high-node count clusters.

      please do. Your phrase of "might as well not be linux", is not equivilant to "adjusted some options at compile time". Its still Linux, and guess what, it will still run most linux binaries, and it will definately run most Linux code. Its still all the same code.

      I suggest you compare the binaries and then return to me and dare to repeat said statement

      compare them how, with a hash sum, or for compatibility.

      . I get it, you hate systemd

      Actually no. I think we can chalk you off to a troll.

      you fail to understand the concept that the same code can compile to very different binaries with a single pre-processor variable

      You don't understand how the same code is the same program, and regardless of the binary being diffrent.

      and you don't like the fact that some people out there want productivity

      random acusations.

      Next you also claim that you don't need a configuration file to know which modules to load at boot

      No, I said it doesn't use a shell script. now you're flat out lying about what I said. Great.

      So I must apologize for having a hard time taking you serious. And lets not forget how you twisted my words into "you think I'm stalking you". You're a bad show man.

      wat? I'm certain your either a troll, or purposefully reciting FUD.

  4. fvwm is what I use, anyway by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Interesting

    every so often, I try out the various 'desktops' that linux distros offer.

    every time, I give up, dislike all the procs running, mem wasted, cpu cycles wasted and all the crap that comes with the desktop. feels like bloat that should not be there, not for a 'simple' linux install.

    I always laugh when people look at my display. I use a red/orange color to highlight the active window and grey for the inactive ones. there is no trash icon, no iconbox, no drag/drop. a short menu appears when you click into space (no clients under) and then pick which foreground rxvt opens up (all with black bg's).

    I keep things simple. but I've been using this layout for literally over 25 yrs (starting with twm and using mwm for a short while, when motif was still popular).

    not having a desktop is great. in all that time, I just have not been limited (at all) in what I can do, and things seem to be fast when I just run a term window, type what I want and it instantly runs.

    unix was supposed to be simple. systemd is an abortion and one that most of us do not want.

    good to see this protest post with a hand-tweaked system; but the fact is, we should NOT have to flip over backwards to remove a stupid should-not-be-there-anyway daemon and its evil libs.

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    1. Re:fvwm is what I use, anyway by kthreadd · · Score: 1

      I mostly use GNOME nowadays but still uses fvwm on my work machine. It's a brilliant window manager but you really need to spend the time learning how to configure it. I like GNOME but it doesn't scale when it comes to managing up to hundreds of windows at the same time.

    2. Re:fvwm is what I use, anyway by geoskd · · Score: 5, Informative

      systemd is an abortion and one that most of us do not want.

      That is simply not true. A VERY vocal minority do not want Systemd on ideological grounds (although I suspect it is more a matter of the new and different scares them, no matter what advantages it may offer)

      The simple fact of the matter is that Systemd does everything, that other init systems do, at least as well, and it does some things that other init systems simply cannot do. If all the popular init systems today had been introduced at the same time, we would all being using Systemd, and no one would have given the others a second thought. The various technical committees have chosen Systemd because on the technical merits Systemd is simply better. There is no argument in favor of the former init systems that cant also be made against all technological progress.

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    3. Re:fvwm is what I use, anyway by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      > The simple fact of the matter is that Systemd does everything, that other init systems do, at least as well,

      No it doesn't. Many of us already have systems that have been broken by this new shit. Meanwhile, we really don't care about these alleged things that systemd is supposed to be able to do that init can't.

      Also don't kid yoursef. systemd would have been rejected in the dawn of day for breaking the design philosophy of Unix.

      That is these "ideological grounds" you speak of. Bad design. Poorly thought through.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    4. Re:fvwm is what I use, anyway by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Sure it does. Application A is dependent on B who is dependent on C. B has a problem and needs to be restarted. What should the OS do regarding C and A?

    5. Re:fvwm is what I use, anyway by Truekaiser · · Score: 1

      openrc and any other proper init system, log an error. user sees error, user fixes error

      systemD, constantly restarts all three services. filling up log files, and grinding the system to a halt.
      user can not see error because the disc is busy ballooning the log file to gigabytes in size as systemD restarts services A,B,and C when B crashes on startup every time.

    6. Re:fvwm is what I use, anyway by lkcl · · Score: 1

      unix was supposed to be simple. systemd is an abortion and one that most of us do not want.

      good to see this protest post with a hand-tweaked system; but the fact is, we should NOT have to flip over backwards to remove a stupid should-not-be-there-anyway daemon and its evil libs.

      *thumbs-up* to both these things. thank you.

    7. Re:fvwm is what I use, anyway by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      "Many of us already have systems that have been broken by this new shit." - why did you install it before testing? y anecdote is "it works just fine for my system

      "Bad design. Poorly thought through." - i think we'd prefer to trust the opinion of RH Suse etc over slashdot posters with negative agendas

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    8. Re:fvwm is what I use, anyway by m.dillon · · Score: 1

      Wow, someone other than me who uses fvwm (fvwm2 that is). For the same reason as well. I've tried many other window managers and they all have glitzy graphics and look pretty cool... and also all fall flat on their face if I have a lot of open windows. Spread over 4 virtual x 2 real screens. Dozens and dozens of open windows, usually a mix of xterms, firefox, and xpdf.

      Fvwm? I configure a bunch of button bars and a couple of background clocks stuck to my screens. And, of course, a color-gradient title bar:

      ButtonStyle 3 Vector 13 26x29@1 34x21@1 50x35@1 70x21@1 79x29@1 63x48@0 79x65@1 70x75@0 50x61@0 34x75@0 26x65@0 44x48@1 26x29@0

      Yah, it definitely takes some messing around with the configuration file but what I love most about fvwm2? It's ultra stable and so is the config file. I don't care if its old, it does everything I need it to and it does it fast.

      -Matt

    9. Re:fvwm is what I use, anyway by Microlith · · Score: 1

      dislike all the procs running

      Oh no, there are processes running!

      mem wasted

      Exactly how is it wasted?

      I always laugh when people look at my display. I use a red/orange color to highlight the active window and grey for the inactive ones. there is no trash icon, no iconbox, no drag/drop. a short menu appears when you click into space (no clients under) and then pick which foreground rxvt opens up (all with black bg's).

      So basically, you'd be happy with a modern-day amber phosphor display?

      I've been using this layout for literally over 25 yrs (starting with twm and using mwm for a short while, when motif was still popular).

      Ah, so you're getting old and resistant to change, particularly when it's change that doesn't suit you.

      we should NOT have to flip over backwards to remove a stupid should-not-be-there-anyway daemon and its evil libs.

      So don't use the systems that do use those EBIL DEBIL'S LIBS. Go fund the development of a platform that conforms to your wishes. Don't bitch when others move on and do different things.

    10. Re:fvwm is what I use, anyway by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      unix was supposed to be simple. systemd is an abortion and one that the very vocal minority of us do not want.

      There FTFY. I keep hearing this word majority used almost as if this majority somehow includes the many many developers, maintainers, and decision makers at a wide range of distributions and software package maintainers. Yet somehow what you're complaining about is that users are being alienated en-mass? If that's the case this will be the year of FreeBSD on the desktop.

      We'll revisit in December and see if somehow Debain, RedHat, Ubuntu etc suddenly no longer have any users because the "majority" didn't want something.

    11. Re:fvwm is what I use, anyway by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I have been on fvwm since my first SunOS account and I took my configuration over to Linux. It does what I want, how I want and no big ego developer tells me to do things differently. If it makes it easier to cut out the systemd-cancer in the future, that is a plus.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    12. Re:fvwm is what I use, anyway by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Yes, it needs a few hours to configure it. For something you use every day, that is perfectly adequate, especially as I had to adjust my config exactly once (when fvwm2 came out) in the last 25 years.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    13. Re:fvwm is what I use, anyway by gweihir · · Score: 1

      And it will continue to do it forever as its maintainers have not been infected by the "new is good" dementia.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    14. Re:fvwm is what I use, anyway by gweihir · · Score: 1

      I ratter think a VERY unethical and ruthless minority is pushing systemd for reasons that are not in anybodies best interest except their own. So, have any actual statistics? Or is your statement just as valid as mine?

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    15. Re:fvwm is what I use, anyway by gweihir · · Score: 1

      You trust commercial enterprises to do what is best for you? You should have your head examined....

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    16. Re:fvwm is what I use, anyway by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      systemD, constantly restarts all three services. filling up log files, and grinding the system to a halt.

      If the user didn't want systemd to restart the services he shouldn't have told systemd to restart the services. It's not the default.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    17. Re:fvwm is what I use, anyway by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Except be tiny (seriously, systemd is over an order of magnitude larger than initd!), be portable to non-x86 systems

      Uh, systemd runs on my phone. That's arm based, not x86.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    18. Re:fvwm is what I use, anyway by flirek · · Score: 1

      nope. you are not only one. i'm using fvwm since late '90is :) and dont have plans to change that. i tryed few others and returned back. power of window manager + no othern clutter. also no eye candy who waste resources.

    19. Re:fvwm is what I use, anyway by c · · Score: 1

      A VERY vocal minority do not want Systemd on ideological grounds (although I suspect it is more a matter of the new and different scares them, no matter what advantages it may offer)

      "new and different" actually is a huge problem, combined with what appears to be a very atypical adoption process happening in a very short period of time (in Debian, within a single release cycle).

      Now, ignore the vocal minority. There's always a vocal minority. Sometimes they're right, most times they're just loud, but in the bigger picture they're still a minority.

      It's the silent majority you need to be worried about, and the silent majority don't want systemd. This has nothing to do with the technical merit of systemd. They don't want any substantial deep changes. They want small, piecemeal, trackable and revertable changes. The very conservative people who's livelihoods depend on Linux "just working" are looking at this systemd business and flat-out wondering if the distros have lost their collective minds?

      My group, who are usually pretty near the bleeding edge by our corporate standards (we generally track current stable releases and and deviate from stock as little as possible) normally track Debian stable and we're seriously considering bypassing/delaying Jessie. I can't imagine selling systemd to the other parts of the organization who have deep mods to the distro and reams of detailed documentation that'll have to be completely gutted.

      Basically, all this discussion is pointless noise. Watch the adoption rates for the next couple of release cycles of the more "conservative" distros who have been pulled into the systemd gravity well. Particularly adoption rates where there might be a desktop/server breakdown. That's the silent majority passing judgement. I don't think it's going to be good.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    20. Re:fvwm is what I use, anyway by jbolden · · Score: 1

      The user is a machine. This is process management.

      systemD, constantly restarts all three services

      No it doesn't. systemd can handle complex dependencies in a specific indicated fashion easily.

    21. Re:fvwm is what I use, anyway by geoskd · · Score: 1

      and the silent majority don't want systemd

      This is the same mistake that both camps keep making.

      The silent majority dont care. Simple as that. Both sides of this argument are from loud mouth minorities who want to see the design done their way. The anti-systemd crowd argues in generalities, and the pro-systemd crowd argues in specifics. The fact remains that both sides arguments are in fact (generally) correct, but only one side of the argument has technical merit. The other side of the argument has only political merit.

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
  5. Jeezus, give it a rest.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Man, can we just give this a rest? My gawd, I can't believe people have the energy for this. Just go back to an earlier distro before all this stuff and enjoy.

    1. Re:Jeezus, give it a rest.. by lkcl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Man, can we just give this a rest? My gawd, I can't believe people have the energy for this. Just go back to an earlier distro before all this stuff and enjoy.

      we can't. the reason is simple: security updates and software updates will be incompatible. i actually maintain a hell-on-earth system for a client. the choice to do so is entirely mine, i have to point out. it's hell because i disagreed with putting KDE 4 in front of clients who are used to the simplicity of KDE 3.5, and i disagreed with moving them over to Gnome because, well Gnome is a different kind of hell (for me), involving being completely unable to remotely ssh in and hand-edit config files in a pinch. with KDE 3.5 it is still possible to do that.

      so i ended up upgrading to Trinity Desktop, but this is after leaving the system running debian 6 for as long as possible. the upgrade was... fraught. then i had (in December 2014 - so only a couple of months ago) to buy and install a new printer (because we couldn't get the old one). that new HP printer wasn't recognised by the version of hplip that was on the system (3.12).

      so i did an "apt-get upgrade hplip" - and what do you think happened? it said "to satisfy your request we require to remove Trinity Desktop and install KDE 4".

      the reason was because the Trinity Desktop Team do *not have the manpower* to keep such a large old software base completely up-to-date with debian/testing. ... so i was forced to compile hplip from scratch, from source code! *fortunately* HP saw fit to include an extremely well-written and well-thought-out script that detected the OS, installed the build dependencies and generally got on with the job. i was really impressed.

      now, the only reason i could contemplate this was because i am an experienced GNU/Linux systems administrator, but do you *really* think that the average person will be satisfied to "use older software" as you suggest?

      this is the crux of the situation: that we *are* forced to such extreme polarising choices. and that's why i did what i've done - demonstrate that it's possible to remove libsystemd0 which is being shoved down our throats. i *don't care* if libsystemd0 is good or not: i object to it being forced onto people.

    2. Re:Jeezus, give it a rest.. by plazman30 · · Score: 1

      The "average person" doesn't really give a crap whether systemd is there and whether they run Gnome or KDE. If the system boots, the LCD loads at native resoution and they can launch a web browser, they're golden.

    3. Re:Jeezus, give it a rest.. by DUdsen · · Score: 1

      Not true. Average user doesn't use UI on linux. Number of headless linux boxes outnumbers UI based ones 10:1.

      And the number of non mainline linux system outnumber mainline servers by a similar margin, and here we get the core of the systemd resistance.
      Because of poor project management and corporate politics systemd have gone from being a init replacement to something that will never be compatible with all of the non mainline linux systems out there. having systemd maintain cgroups the redhat way is not going to work for FC swtitch since systemd cannot know about the switching application the way a custom implementation.
      And there dozens of edge case like this were an resource rich organization gets thrown under the bus and have to abandon any hope collaborating with mainline linux if systemd becomes the defining factor for mainline linux.

      Google who does sell linux based consumer products does not seams to have that much of an interest in systemd and is not in a hurry to adopt it, canonocal voted against it in the debian election and is still pushing their own cgroup manager, and is trying to implement systemd in a weird almost fashion and running into a ton of problems that also plague debian jessie, which mark the first time in almost a decade Debian testing is actually broken beyond the point where a end user becomes frustrated. This is following the mess GTK3/gnome3 created which spawned the unity, mate and cinnamon desktop environments, whith much of the same retoric on forums as we now get with systemd/anti-systemd

      GTK3 went into a decline declining, following the failure of the gnome3 vision to resonate with the market, so it's far from certain systemd is the success people hope it hurried adoption will make it by the time RHEL8 is scheduled for release you might see real competition in the cgroup manager space, and a decent non systemd embedded API for setting cgroups permissions.

  6. FreeBSD by byuu · · Score: 3, Informative

    forcing people to consider abandoning the GNU/Linux of their choice and to seriously consider using FreeBSD

    I did just that. It took a few weeks to figure out how to work around all the kinks (as FreeBSD is primarily targeted at the server space), but I'm really glad I did. I have a full Xfce desktop with all of the programs I was using on Wheezy before. Rock solid stability. Might be a bit easier to try PC-BSD to get one's feet wet.

    I've also really grown to like all of the new features: ZFS for easy multi-disk mirroring, encryption, and snapshots; pf for firewall rules; etc. There's also DTrace, jails, etc. The integration with the base utils is wonderful, and the documentation is top notch. I've also found the new package system to work as good as apt-get (pkg install {program-name} and you're done.) I liked it enough that I've even started using it for my servers as well.

    Definitely give it a try if systemd bothers you as well.

    1. Re:FreeBSD by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 2

      Rock solid stability.

      Good for you, but heed my warning. In the latter part of the previous decade we too ran FreeBSD. The guy who originally installed was a system admin with severe BSD lust and he singlehandedly pushed for it. We had a specific type of hardware where we could make FreeBSD panic and we could reproduce the crash at will. It turned out that a specific combination of CPU and network card that we had caused the panic. The issue was known and discussed about, but since the number of people who had this specific combination of hardware was low, basically the BSD forums all said "Sucks to be you. Don't count on a fix anytime soon." We migrated every FreeBSD box we had to CentOS (this is a free version of RedHat, for those who don't know) and abandoned FreeBSD. The problem did not exist in CentOS/RedHat. So as long as you don't have any exotic problems, good for you, but if you do, you may find that unlike in the Linux world, nobody may care enough to fix a show stopping problem you have.

    2. Re:FreeBSD by Monkey-Man2000 · · Score: 1

      Full disclosure: It's been many years since I tried FreeBSD, but I rather liked it for the light server install I made.

      Anyway, you make it sound like the participants of the BSD forums were maliciously not helping you, but the reality was probably more like they simply didn't have enough people (or any!) with your hardware combination. This may be a valid concern, especially for a company, but who thinks FreeBSD is trying to realistically compete head-to-head with RHEL (and by extension CentOS) especially in regards to support?

      --
      This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
    3. Re:FreeBSD by adri · · Score: 1

      ...

      Did you just try web forums? Did you try engaging people on one of the FreeBSD mailing lists? It's odd that repeating a crash like you did wouldn't lead to a quick solution.

      I mean, unless it's a realtek NIC or something, we're pretty good at fixing repeatable crashes.

      (adrian@freebsd)

    4. Re:FreeBSD by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      don't get too complacent.. FreeBSD's Jordan Hubbard sees need for a modern init system with features like systemd/launch

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    5. Re:FreeBSD by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

      I am also trying FreeBSD. Sadly, the hardware support seems to leave something to be desired.

      The ports system is amazing. Easier to install Linux software on FreeBSD, than on Slackware, from my experience.

      FreeBSD is a fast, stable, coherent system. I like the "techie" feel. I don't mind editing a few config files.

    6. Re:FreeBSD by byuu · · Score: 1

      That's fine by me. I'm not opposed to a better init system (although BSD's rc system is already way ahead of SysVInit ... I can set up a new service by making a text file with four lines in it.) I am opposed to a poorly documented (often times no documentation at all exists), monolithic design that consumes dozens of daemons that are unrelated to an init system (did you see the recent cache poisoning bug in their DNS resolver?) and offers absolutely ridiculous functionality (like a web server that spits out QR codes.) I'm opposed to the move to corruptible, binary log files. I am greatly opposed to the politics that pushed this on nearly every distro, and the forced dependencies added so that you need systemd to burn a CD with Brasero, or to run unpatched Gnome. I'm opposed to totally writing off anything but Linux. I'm opposed to the cavalier attitudes of their lead developers. And on and on and on ...

      FreeBSD would never do this, and even if by some horror they did, then I'd move over to Open/Net/Dragonfly instead.

    7. Re:FreeBSD by Lisias · · Score: 1

      monolithic design

      Actually it is about 60 or so binaries, each doing some small and easy to grasp task.

      Good. Can I replace any one of these so binaries, so I can get rid of a nasty security flaw?

      I'm opposed to the cavalier attitudes of their lead developers.

      This is about code, not people. At least it should be. You are the one that is opposed to the politics, yet you do not want to limit the discussion to the technical merits and want to instead focus on people?

      If these people are writing the code, HELL YES!

      --
      Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
    8. Re:FreeBSD by Lisias · · Score: 1

      Good. Can I replace any one of these so binaries, so I can get rid of a nasty security flaw?

      Sure, why not? You will obviously have to make sure the service is restarted, but that is no different than with any other system.

      WITHOUT RECOMPILING THE WORLD? =P

      When I have a tool set of standalone applications, each one consuming the production of the other, it's easy to replace a single component (or recompiling a single component) without having to re-homologate everything.

      But this is a Quality Team problem, and we are all developers, right? Fsck the Quality, right?

      Allow me to rephrase my question to something less abstract: I want to get rid of DBUS. Can I do it?

      This is about code, not people. At least it should be. You are the one that is opposed to the politics, yet you do not want to limit the discussion to the technical merits and want to instead focus on people?

      If these people are writing the code, HELL YES!

      So we should all not use politics, except if they fit into your agenda?

      If by politics you mean "being or not cavalier about solving problems", HELL YES.

      I don't care about who you vote. I don't care about what you believes.

      I care about HOW YOU BEHAVE when you face a problem you created yourself (or are responsible for).

      Being cavalier about your responsibilities is a important fact for me if I need to use your code.

      I don't care if you call it politics or not.

      --
      Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
    9. Re:FreeBSD by Lisias · · Score: 1

      Good. Can I replace any one of these so binaries, so I can get rid of a nasty security flaw?

      Sure, why not? You will obviously have to make sure the service is restarted, but that is no different than with any other system.

      WITHOUT RECOMPILING THE WORLD? =P

      When I have a tool set of standalone applications, each one consuming the production of the other, it's easy to replace a single component (or recompiling a single component) without having to re-homologate everything.

      But this is a Quality Team problem, and we are all developers, right? Fsck the Quality, right?

      Allow me to rephrase my question to something less abstract: I want to get rid of DBUS. Can I do it?

      This is about code, not people. At least it should be. You are the one that is opposed to the politics, yet you do not want to limit the discussion to the technical merits and want to instead focus on people?

      If these people are writing the code, HELL YES!

      So we should all not use politics, except if they fit into your agenda?

      If by politics you mean "being or not cavalier about solving problems", HELL YES.

      I don't care about who you vote. I don't care about what you believe.

      I care about HOW YOU BEHAVE when you face a problem you created yourself (or are responsible for).

      Being cavalier about your responsibilities is a important fact for me if I need to use your code.

      I don't care if you call it politics or not.

      --
      Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
  7. What a load of crap by gamorck · · Score: 1

    All or nothing? Nearly every part of systemd beyond the minimal PID 1 functionality can be switched out with replacement components. Linux users are supposed to be more intelligent, though if that's the case why is it that so many of them seem to have shoved their head up their ass in regards to systemd? Almost every piece of information in the original post is 100% inaccurate and yet nobody is calling the author out on it.

    --
    I love idealists not because I am one, but because they make life bearable for pragmatists such as myself.
    1. Re:What a load of crap by kthreadd · · Score: 2

      This is not even about systemd, it's a about libsystemd which is just a library for interfacing with systemd. You can have libsystemd installed and still don't have systemd itself installed. Debian has built some of their packages so that they depend on libsystemd, so installing them will bring libsystemd with them. Not a problem if you don't want to run systemd, but if you for some reason can't live with dpkg-query -l | grep systemd printing even a single line then this is apparently a problem.

    2. Re:What a load of crap by lkcl · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      This is not even about systemd, it's a about libsystemd which is just a library for interfacing with systemd. You can have libsystemd installed and still don't have systemd itself installed. Debian has built some of their packages so that they depend on libsystemd, so installing them will bring libsystemd with them. Not a problem if you don't want to run systemd, but if you for some reason can't live with dpkg-query -l | grep systemd printing even a single line then this is apparently a problem.

      a *fraction* of the extent of the problem is actually illustrated here:
      http://anfo.slavino.sk/libsyst...

      those packages that i recompiled (policykit-1, d-bus, pulseaudio and util-linux) have a huge range of dependencies that cover something like 98% of the most commonly used software in the linux world. cups-daemon, the gimp, vlc, mplayer, and others too numerous to mention: all come under the fascist rule of libsystemd thanks to the unilateral decision making of a handful of people.

      and i'll repeat it again because it seems not to be getting through: the problem is that there *is no alternative*. it's their way or fuck off: you are not permitted to argue your case even reasonably (because it will be ignored). and that's just... wholly unacceptable. *i don't care* who is techically right or wrong: i care that this is a situation that has become like the Microsoft Monopoly: dominate, dominate, dominate.

      so that's the deadlock that i seek to break, by demonstrating that you *can* have a working desktop system without having a single part of the code written by people who do not listen and who act in such highly irresponsible ways.

    3. Re:What a load of crap by kthreadd · · Score: 1

      I really don't understand what the problem is. Do you even know what libsystemd is? It's not systemd and it does not force you to run systemd. You can have it installed and still have a completely systemd-free experience. This is *only* a problem if you can't live with having a single package with systemd in its name installed.

    4. Re:What a load of crap by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      Of course he doesn't. He might as well have randomly picked any line from "dpkg -l | grep lib" and written the same article. It would've been exactly as sensible.

  8. Devuan and uselessd by tepples · · Score: 5, Informative

    Can't someone fork a version without systemd?

    There's a fork of Debian without systemd, and there's a project to strip systemd down to the essential parts.

  9. Ah, here it is by SeaFox · · Score: 2

    I thought something was off, feels like it's been a week since the last time I saw an article about systemd (not to be confused with all the other Linus articles that are turned into systemd discussions by commenters).

    1. Re:Ah, here it is by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      I thought something was off, feels like it's been a week since the last time I saw an article about systemd (not to be confused with all the other Linux articles that are turned into systemd discussions by commenters).

      Bah. Stupid typo.

  10. unilaterally by jjohn_h · · Score: 1

    >>>
    The introduction of systemd has unilaterally created a polarization of the GNU/Linux community
    >>>

    Please allow me to correct a little oversight: The introduction of systemd has BILATERALLY created a polarization of the GNU/Linux community...

  11. Good luck when it breaks by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

    Good luck trying to fix something when it breaks. You'll find little or no documentation, scripts that call scripts that lead to more scripts, and logs that don't give you any meaningful information. People did fork a systemd free version of Debian and Slackware is still chugging along without it.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:Good luck when it breaks by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Good luck trying to fix something when it breaks.

      You just get the install CD out of the drawer, correct?

      (dear god, I hope there isn't some SystemD dude out there saying 'yeah, right' without recognizing sarcasm)

    2. Re:Good luck when it breaks by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      "scripts that call scripts that lead to more scripts," - you are talking about sysvinit there aren't you because if you are not, you need to read up about systemd.

      " and logs that don't give you any meaningful information" - again, you need to read up about the systemd journal logging before you make these sorts of comments

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    3. Re:Good luck when it breaks by parenthephobia · · Score: 1

      I've seen people reference systemd "throwing away log messages" several times now. I've never seen a straightforward description of the problem.

      Is this referring to all log levels having the same size limit, so debug messages can push out emerg messages from earlier?

    4. Re:Good luck when it breaks by hitmark · · Score: 1

      Best i can tell, the messages simply do not show up inside journald. And there is no way for them to make it onto the terminal when run inside systemd.

      Mind tough that it is a issue that appears to be fixed in more recent version of systemd, but RH elected to ship a older version in RHEL7.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    5. Re:Good luck when it breaks by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      On the laptop I'm posting from (Debian Sid):

      # journalctl -p 0..3|wc -l
      304

      On the CentOS 7 I set up to see if I could duplicate these problems:

      [root@centaur ~]# cat /etc/redhat-release
      CentOS Linux release 7.0.1406 (Core)
      [root@centaur ~]# journalctl -p 0..3 | wc -l
      7

      There is obviously something wrong with your system. Have you reported a bug?

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    6. Re:Good luck when it breaks by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      The problem also doesn't exist in CentOS 7 (installed Friday).

      And nobody seems to have reported it as a bug (which it clearly is).

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    7. Re:Good luck when it breaks by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      > Have you reported a bug?

      Why? So you people can tell me again that you hope my mother dies of cancer? I think I've filed nine bugs in the past two years we've used systemd

      So, which is it? Have you filed a bug or not? If you have, where is it? What was the resolution?

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    8. Re:Good luck when it breaks by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Oh, yes -- the only mention of "cancer" I can find on the systemd mailing lists is from anonymous at dodgeit.com who says:

      Kay, Please go die in a fire along with Lennart. Your type is the cancer that
      is killing any semblence of usability Linux once had.

      I doubt Kay is your mother.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
  12. Haters Gonna hate by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    ... In 3,2,1

  13. If it is possible is enough for me by RuaisLampSilog · · Score: 1

    The fact that is possible to run debian or any other distro without systemd is enough for me to stay cool. Let's put that effort somewhere else.

    --
    We all knew this would happen. Alas, we did it anyway.
  14. Entitlement by ToasterMonkey · · Score: 1

    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.

    When was the open source or free software spirit EVER "Have it your way", like some kind of unpaid Burger King?
    You can't vote with your wallet with free software. Unless you pay for it, and my wild guess is most people don't.

    If you can code, you can vote. Maybe. If someone accepts your patches. Not everyone wants to make money either.
    If you can't code, can't pay, and have a problem with what you get - get a job and/or learn to code.

  15. Choice is good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I agree, but I am having a hell of a time getting over the initd martyrs. Everything I see about this is written like some kind of revolutionary maniphesto.

    And this is the IMPROVEMENT, before it was just endless vitriol towards Lennart Poettering whose crime was "writing a software package for free", even though he's not the one with the end-say on what packages go in the distribution.

    If they all move to devaun the debian community is going to be getting rid of some of its most vitriolic and insufferable members. I imagine concentrating all those people in one place is going to be disaster down the line but at least they're going to be gone from the forums of the systemd-based distros

  16. Fuck systemd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If I wanted one program to perform every single imaginable task on my computer, I'd install Firefox.

  17. I'm not worried. by MouseTheLuckyDog · · Score: 2

    Here is what I think will happen:
            At some point Poettering will piss off Linux enough to get him banned from submitting to the mainstream kernel.
            To deal with the problems of no active maintainer of systemd contributing to the kernel, Linus will write his own boot system.
            This system will work better then the sysinit system, but not be anywhere near as onerous as systemd.
            Peace will return to the linux landscape.
     

    1. Re:I'm not worried. by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      linus is a kernel guy. he self-professes he does not 'like' to setup or manage his own linux systems (strange but true; check out some linus YT videos, there was one at debconf where he talks about it). he says he 'sucks at IT'. system startup is more like IT work than kernel work.

      my guess is that this is not a 'linus thing' and never will be.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    2. Re:I'm not worried. by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'm sure Red Hat will be kicked out...

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    3. Re:I'm not worried. by Art3x · · Score: 1

      Linus will write his own boot system

      linus is a kernel guy. . . . my guess is that this is not a 'linus thing'

      Then again, he wrote Git ;)

    4. Re:I'm not worried. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Who's he pissing off? Sounds like a bunch of end users. Decision makers seem to be all on board with his vision and his software. I wouldn't count on your prediction to come to fruition.

    5. Re:I'm not worried. by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      I concur with Linus. IT is the work for the janitors.

    6. Re:I'm not worried. by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Sure they will, he's just doing it one dev at a time ;)

  18. Oblig Frasier by Tridus · · Score: 2

    http://imgur.com/gallery/VWUgs...

    Sums up how I feel about yet another systemd flame war.

    --
    -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
  19. Do people who post on lkml actually know english? by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 1

    Really, someone should get a dictionary for their birthday and read the definition for "unilateral" lol.

    --
    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
  20. Looks like they took lessons from Microsoft. by Tridus · · Score: 1

    Back in those days, you could remove IE (the browser) without breaking things just fine.

    You couldn't remove mshtml.dll, aka IE (the rendering engine) without breaking a lot of applications that used it to display HTML, including other Windows components.

    So in that case, what both Microsoft and opponents were saying was true, depending on what you mean by "IE".

    --
    -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
  21. Why wasn't there a systemd fork of Debian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Normally when there are experimental changes made to a software system, a branch of some sort is created, the experimental work is done in isolation there, and if the changes are working well then the branch is folded back into the mainline version of the software.

    I'm confused as to why this was not done when integrating systemd into Debian.

    Why did something as experimental and potentially disruptive as systemd go into mainline Debian so quickly?

    Why wasn't a separate fork created of Debian, like was done for Debian/kFreeBSD, with all systemd integration happening there? If, a few years down the road, this fork was doing well and users liked it, it would become part of mainline Debian.

    I find it really odd that people keep saying that there should be a fork of Debian without systemd. But that makes no sense. It should be the other way around. Debian was well established years before systemd was even conceived. So Debian should have been left as it was, with a fork of Debian being created with systemd.

    1. Re:Why wasn't there a systemd fork of Debian? by resfilter · · Score: 5, Interesting

      debian uses simple release engineering like unstable -> testing -> release. there are other projects that work in a similar way, freebsd is fairly similar. they have commonly done gigantic system-wide break everything for months type changes in freebsd current.

      they don't need to fork to test experiental things, they just do it in unstable first. then when they can't find problems, it goes into testing. eventually testing becomes a release.

      considering systemd has been in debian in an experimental capacity for nearly 3 years, i think they've done enough testing to consider it stable.

      it's nothing like debian/kfreebsd, because changing to a completely different kernel is nothing like changing an init system. not to mention that debian/kfreebsd was expected to have a very long steep development curve with a very small audience, whereas systemd is something that is already proven to be a fairly stable thing. redhat has been using it by default for half a decade.

      i'll never use systemd, though. not because i don't trust its stability. the way it works and is configured reminds me of DJB software. makes sense, works well enough, but is wrong on a level that is difficult to explain.

    2. Re:Why wasn't there a systemd fork of Debian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Normally when there are experimental changes made to a software system, a branch of some sort is created, the experimental work is done in isolation there, and if the changes are working well then the branch is folded back into the mainline version of the software.

      I'm confused as to why this was not done when integrating systemd into Debian.

      Why did something as experimental and potentially disruptive as systemd go into mainline Debian so quickly?

      Because the sudden almost-universal rise of systemd is about politics, not robust system design. That should be obvious to you and anyone else who notices the strange hurry to adopt systemd. Poettering and his circle-jerk fanboys are simply very good salesmen. If Debian went with your suggestion (that is, treating systemd like they generally treat any other major changes), that would mean lots of time to think about it. Time to think about it vastly increases the chances that people will realize that systemd offers few real-world advantages to make up for its tremendous complexity and abandonment of the Unix philosophy. That's a win for sound system design, but no good for politics.

      Red Hat and its cronies (like Poettering) simply has far too much influence over the development of Linux distributions, much more than any single corporation deserves to have. Large parts of the core system aren't community-developed and haven't been for a long time now. Politics is hard when there are many distributed developers and you must convince most of them. Politics is easy when there are a few top-down managers and you know what they want to hear.

    3. Re:Why wasn't there a systemd fork of Debian? by walterbyrd · · Score: 4, Informative

      Love the parroting of corporate propaganda, right out of Microsoft's playbook: "anybody who doesn't like vista/win8/ribbon/ooxml is just an old fuddy-duddy luddite, all the cool kids love our latest super-cool technology."

      > As far as this "UNIX Philosphy", fuck that shit.

      If you hate it so much, use ms-windows. I mean it. If you want a proprietary system that controls everything with one big super-complex blob, then use ms-windows and be happy, and leave everything UNIX-like alone.

      BTW: the UNIX philosophy is not just dogma, it has a practical purpose and has worked very well.

    4. Re:Why wasn't there a systemd fork of Debian? by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Erm... there is so much untruth in your post it's scary.

      Stallman chose to write a unix-like OS not out of love for Unix is all you got right, why he DID choose it you got dead wrong. Which is weird since he clearly and simply explained it long ago.
      He knew that his old MIT project ITS had died because it was tied to a specific hardware platform, he didn't want that to happen again. So he needed to create his OS in such a way that it was portable to new hardware.
      Unix was the ONLY portable OS that existed at the time, replicating it was the best way to ensure GNU would keep working on new generations of computer (and just look at how many platforms GNU/Linux actually supports today - look how quickly we had full ARM support - the decision paid off).
      Stallman himself stated he didn't think Unix was particularly elegant a design and certainly not as nice as the stuff he'd worked at the AI lab - but it was portable, and he wanted to write a portable OS, the easiest way to do that was to base his design on the only existing portable OS design.

      Now personally I think the Unix design WAS elegant, "do one thing and do it well" and then let all the bits that "do one thing well" be able to be chained together in any way you like to construct things that do really complicated stuff and do them well - it is, in fact, a very sound way to engineer an operating system that gives you tremendous power, tremendous flexibility and tremendous flexibility. Stallman may no have agreed at the time but I think even he started changing his mind later.
      The fact is, losing that is harmful to Linux in the extreme, it damages it's ability to cash in on this solid engineering approach.

      You hated init scripts ? I loved them. I loved the flexibility and power they gave me. If I wanted my webserver to start later, or I wanted to tweak the way it got started to fit some localized need - I could do that, with no risk of breaking anything else.
      How exactly would I do this with systemd ? It's opague and hard to figure out and badly documented and I can't pipe the stuff between a thousand disparate commands to construct whatever I need on the fly as and when I need it - those are the REASONS to use Linux (technical reasons).
      Why deprive me of that.

      Now it's true that sysv init was long in the tooth, we've been saying we need parallel init (that understands which things need to wait for which other things) for a long, long time - hell the developer of DevFS (the kernel-space forerunner to udev) wrote a make-based init system to do that back in 1999 !
      Along the way we had a few attempts to get there, of which upstart was one of the best.

      Hell at my previous job I wrote something very similar to an init system (though it didn't replace init, it sat on top of it and was started by an init script and then took over for second-stage startup). It was parallel, yet dependency aware, it would automatically restart failed services yet it could also tell if a service was in a bad state and failing to start (and stop trying to restart it), it could report the state of all services in simple language, could be extended or modified in simple unix terms using simple commands with simple options, new service registrations were simply a single command.
      All the things we actually WANTED out of an init system - and it was done in about 20 lines of python and 30 lines of bash.

      Now that wasn't intended to be an init system, it was meant to handle the startup of a series of containerized services with interdependencies in the fastest possible way - but it proved that you don't NEED systemd to achieve everything that we DID want, and more.
      Maybe writing it in C would make it a tiny bit faster, on the other hand it would make what was simple and transparent into something opague and complicated - which was simply an unacceptable trade-off for us, as it ought to be for distributions.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    5. Re:Why wasn't there a systemd fork of Debian? by commandlinegamer · · Score: 1

      DJB wrote qmail, daemontools, etc, to be simple and robust, in line with the Unix philosophy of having lots of little tools, each doing one thing well. He also put his money where his mouth was, offering bug bounties. If there's a correlation between his software and systemd, it may be in that it upset an established way of doing things.

    6. Re:Why wasn't there a systemd fork of Debian? by davydagger · · Score: 1

      Love the parroting of corporate propaganda

      except we are talking about a piece of Free software, not a corporate product.

      If you hate it so much, use ms-windows.

      False dichomoty, its either "Use Windows" or "Use UNIX".

      one big super-complex blob

      just like the Linux kernel. No, I actuall like GNU, if you like UNIX so much go use solaris or FreeBSD, and leave GNU alone. Oh, and have fun getting driver support with that.

      BTW: the UNIX philosophy is not just dogma, it has a practical purpose and has worked very well.

      has been dead since 1985

    7. Re:Why wasn't there a systemd fork of Debian? by davydagger · · Score: 1

      You hated init scripts ? I loved them. I loved the flexibility and power they gave me. If I wanted my webserver to start later, or I wanted to tweak the way it got started to fit some localized need - I could do that, with no risk of breaking anything else. How exactly would I do this with systemd ? It's opague and hard to figure out and badly documented and I can't pipe the stuff between a thousand disparate commands to construct whatever I need on the fly as and when I need it - those are the REASONS to use Linux (technical reasons).

      you could use Before= and After= in the systemd unit files, you can even place overrides in /etc/systemd/system/ instead of modifying the package files in /usr/lib if you so choose:

      https://coreos.com/docs/launching-containers/launching/getting-started-with-systemd/

      Do you know what, editting what is typically 10 lines of key=value pairs in a config file is a hell of a lot easier and safer than monkying with some bash script.(or dash in debian).

      Do you know what else I don't miss, stuck proccesses, when a proccess hangs, and /etc/init.d/proccessname can't do a damn thing about it, and it still leaves its pid file to clean up. speaking of which, the PID file is the only way that the rest of the system knows if the program is running or not. systemctl stop has never failed me. It hits with the power of kill -9 and cleans up the mess. Which is great because if you run a poorly written program with an equally poorly written init script, systemd is better at getting that crap off your system.

      Oh yeah, and the fact is your running a shell script to start and stop programs. What could possibly go wrong. Its like having your car held together with duct tape.

      but yes, systemd is very configurable, with easy to read configuration files. Configuration files that work key=pair, like everything else.

      Then we get to runlevels, instead of an esotetic mess of 123560, we get singleuser, multiuser,reboot, etc...

      If you want/need syslog back you can edit /etc/systemd/journald.conf and uncommont FowardToSyslog= and change the value to "yes".

      it is, in fact, a very sound way to engineer an operating system

      Its a sound way to engineer nothing. Its akin to having many moving parts, and many more points of failure. One of GNU/Linux's greatest weaknesses is that its many moving parts written by diffrent peope.

      people weren't this pissed when HAL was depreciated and the functionality taken over by udev. Again, one less moving part. One less point of failure.

  22. I'll say this for systemd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It got me to put FreeBSD on my to do list for 2015.

  23. Contrary to opinion... by Junta · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All the criticism of systemd is not strictly from a luddite perspective. There is a population that appreciates meaningful advances (Wayland, btrfs, even some facets of systemd), but doesn't like some of the compromises systemd has employed to achieve their goals. Getting stuck in a point of time before systemd is not a desirable result, and in fact systemd might be able to win over some detractors if they recognize criticism and make sensible technical solutions to those rather than continuing to say 'oh everyone loves it except some impossible to please luddites'. For example, journald could embrace native text logging with external binary metadata and deliver all the goodies they provide and quell all the (justified) bitching that human readable logging is a second class citizen in their model.

    They may not be able to accommodate all the objections (e.g. the amount of complexity they *must* do in pid 1 to have guaranteed comprehensive service management without blindly applying namespace isolation everywhere that would make a system look even weirder/risk breaking some services), but they could come a long way.

    The issue for many of us is that things are being implemented that go beyond what systems administrators can follow along without understanding how to be a more robust software developer (and even then, there's some loss of convenience in analyzing things compared to an interpreted language). Systemd design shifts focus on specialized tools that are better at their specific task, but less reusable in similar contexts. If I started with syslog and learned 'tail -f' will let me watch logs, then I have acquired knowledge that can be used the next time I encounter logging output. If I learn 'journalctl -f', then that knowledge does not transfer to the huge number of other applications that do logging. It's a small example of things that in aggregate pose a significant challenge.

    An administrator faced with a 'classic' design won't know everything about the system, but can get far with 'set -x', 'find', and 'grep' because the configuration, logging, and much of the 'glue' code is in clear text, and communication between programs usually hits the filesystem in fairly specific ways. Now with things like systemd and dbus, 'invisible' things happen (well, overly generic communication channels and compiled code). When the kernel implements new awesome stuff, it frequently manifests in sysfs, which is nice and discoverable. Advanced functionality that adheres to the 'everything is a file' and generally presents and accepts simple utf-8/ascii data. Not everything in the kernel does that, sometimes it creates obscure devnodes with ioctls instead, but it's a common and good practice in kernel land.

    In general, we already have a system that embraces many of the design principles observed in systemd and actually does a decent job of making the concepts work: Windows. Even with a great deal of talented investment over the course of decades, when a Windows system goes off the reservation in certain ways, no one will be able to bring it back because of how complicated the integration of the various components. While certain concepts can be specifically be done better (e.g. journald does better than windows event framework), the emergent behavior of Windows that becomes impossible to overcome by administrators isn't really due to those specific things.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    1. Re:Contrary to opinion... by lkcl · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In general, we already have a system that embraces many of the design principles observed in systemd and actually does a decent job of making the concepts work: Windows. Even with a great deal of talented investment over the course of decades, when a Windows system goes off the reservation in certain ways, no one will be able to bring it back because of how complicated the integration of the various components.

      your post is particularly insightful - i hope it is recognised as such by moderators. i wanted to emphasise what you said, because NT 3.5 and 4.0 used a recursive login system based on DCE/RPC function calls. a "domain" logon was (is) actually no diffferent from a "local" logon: the only difference being that the SAM database was running locally (and was marked in the registry as being the same name as the machine). as a result of this, there were actually simple registry hacks for NT 3.51 to turn a workstation into a Primary Domain Controller!

      so thanks to DCE/RPC, all that happened with a Domain Logon was that the incoming function call would make an (identical) recursive *outgoing* login function call to the nearest PDC/BDC/Trusted Domain. that Trusted Domain Controller would, in turn, on receipt of the incoming function call, make an (identical) recursive outgoing function call to the nearest PDC/BDC... and eventually, through this chain, the answer would be "login success or fail".

      incredibly neat, and technically brilliant... but the actual number of people in the world who really truly understand that must be limited to under a hundred people at most. *not all of them* work at microsoft....

    2. Re:Contrary to opinion... by jbolden · · Score: 1

      That's absolutely true. And that is one of the first valid criticisms of systemd I've seen. So let me start with a complement.

      Now let me respond. One of the big shifts that systemd is embracing is towards IaaS/PaaS type services. Individual boxes if they go "off the reservation" are just blown away. Either they are able to fix themselves or they get dropped from the cluster. At an individual level they don't get fixed. The goal is to increase the percentage of self repairs as high as possible, even at the expense of making complex repairs much harder because those can be handled at by the PaaS.

    3. Re:Contrary to opinion... by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

      > All the criticism of systemd is not strictly from a luddite perspective.

      Bullshit. "Insightful" my ass.

    4. Re:Contrary to opinion... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      And that does help absolutely nothing for a systematic problem. My take is that the systemd "designers" are not able to even understand that.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    5. Re:Contrary to opinion... by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Of course that's a minor issue compared to the one that systemd throws away log messages so there is nothing to find in the first place. It is a security nightmare. From dealing with Red Hat's (expensive) support, it sounds like they're also fed-up with systemd-created problems. We had a simple problem that should have taken thirty seconds to fix if systemd hadn't swallowed the stderr output and thrown away the syslog messages. Instead, I had two guys waste half a day on it, and it took Red Hat about three hours to figure it out.

      And you managed to do that while leaving no visible trace of the bug report.

      Interesting.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    6. Re:Contrary to opinion... by Junta · · Score: 1

      Ok, I meant to say 'not all of the criticism is strictly from a luddite perspective', I recognize that some of it is stubborn rejection of change, but that's no reason to point at that aspect of it and say 'see, they have no leg to stand on, *some* of them can't make a coherent argument as to why they are pissed!'

      systemd development should be both proud and concerned. Obviously they have provided value as a non-trivial population stands up and defends them for the sake of the value. Obviously they are leaving some users adrift because so many are pissed. And then there are a lot of people on both sides that just love excuses to argue, but there is definitely a significant meaningful core of supporters and detractors.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    7. Re: Contrary to opinion... by Junta · · Score: 1

      So logs are binary? Just send them on and do with them whatever you want.

      The issue is that plain text has the best parser in the world for when things go badly wrong: the human brain. In a binary format, if things go wrong so that parsers lose track, then it's a lost cause. If structured text log is damaged beyond the reach of the utility, a human can still apply knowledge to do some forensics. Add to that the scenario where you don't have said parsers handy in a 'rescue' context.

      At least you finally get to see all the logs and won't find information went MIA because the logger was not yet running or could just not get the data in the first place.

      And that speaks to my point, I said that systemd might be able to win over detractors. Binary doesn't add value to any of the cases you described. Those are nice features, and if there were *no* downside, then people wouldn't argue as much about relative value. Right now the discussion is 'but we can do these tricks!' and answered with 'but it isn't worth it', not that the features are inherently bad. If the things given up are mitigated, then the 'we can do these tricks!' becomes more persuasive

      More and more apps are going to log there

      It will *never* be the case for every app. Syslog was never universally supported. Windows has had decades of an analogous unified logging facility, and not even all *microsoft* code uses it to log. A monolithic logging facility has *never* become ubiquitous for all applications on a system. Besides, that was just one example. Another is that systemd emphasizes 'systemd-nspawn' when there is an 'unshare' command that with a *little* scripting can do the same thing. A wrapper around the utility in shell strikes me as a way to get an entirely new system call into the hands of administrators that is more approachable.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    8. Re:Contrary to opinion... by Junta · · Score: 1

      One of the big shifts that systemd is embracing is towards IaaS/PaaS type services.

      While that is a growing use case, the trend will plateau. Making an application stack that intelligently does that is no small feat, leaving a large chunk of the market not able to make the shift. For an example, look at how most new mainframes are used. Brand new software and hardware stack catering to running software pretty much exactly the way it was run 30 years ago. Some places and developers won't change. Besides, a great deal of companies that brag about how awesome their PaaS implementations do not provide a pleasant user experience and/or suck down a *lot* more resource than they need. Even when people *think* they got the hang of these architectures (after non trivial work toward that goal), they still frequently deliver sub-par experiences.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    9. Re:Contrary to opinion... by jbolden · · Score: 1

      Making an application stack that intelligently does that is no small feat, leaving a large chunk of the market not able to make the shift.

      I guess we disagree there. I see a pretty easy migration for server solutions already. I'm not seeing many that are having that difficult a problem. What areas do you believe aren't migrating to IaaS solutions?

      Besides, a great deal of companies that brag about how awesome their PaaS implementations do not provide a pleasant user experience and/or suck down a *lot* more resource than they need

      True. No question. But often those resources are cheaper. So people for example replace expensive Teradata licenses with cheap (free) Hadoop licenses even if they are using 4x as much hardware the IaaS is way cheaper than what it is replacing. I haven't seen a place that hasn't worked.

      As for unpleasant user experience, as contrasted to what? Who is having that problem?

    10. Re:Contrary to opinion... by Junta · · Score: 1

      The pain comes in getting developers all to have share-nothing sensibilities throughout the stack such that any particular piece can fail and it proceeds without a hiccup. A developer uses a quick and dirty BDB, hard to make that stand up regardless of what rug gets yanked out from under it. For developers *trying* to get there, the debug and testing rigor required is significantly higher than what they are accustomed to. Keep in mind that not all these applications are targeted to arbitrarily large audiences, some of them target no more than a small business or team in an instance. If designing for big scale a lot of the sensibilities are unavoidable and you better have the talent to get it done regardless, but not everyone is designing for scale.

      To unpleasant user experience, many web sites and mobile apps get their brains thoroughly fried in strange ways during sessions, often rooted in some component falling over that wasn't actually prepared for. For a web page this is usually little more than an annoyance, but mobile app developer recommending reinstall over such a glitch is not uncommon.

      This is getting a tad off topic though. Disposable system images are nice for cheap IaaS, but a penalty is paid up the stack that sometimes more than makes up for the savings below, and that situation is very highly dependent upon luck of the pool of talent and skill available in the situation.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  24. Already done in TRIOS :) by DraganFOSS · · Score: 1

    TRIOS is based on Debian Jessie, systemd removed https://foss.rs/threads/trios-... DL link: http://mirror.org.rs/image/TRI...

  25. Ask the Linux distributors to change by ilotgov · · Score: 1

    I can't understand why people are asking developers to stop working on systemd or even abusing them. Anybody can develop software, useful or not, system-d or system-that. Why not putting some effort into convincing distributors, especially server distributors, to use more administrator friendly init-frameworks.

    1. Re:Ask the Linux distributors to change by kthreadd · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be surprised if most sysadmins actually want systemd, or at least is ok with it. From what I've seen the people that really don't want it is more of a vocal minority.

    2. Re:Ask the Linux distributors to change by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      you are wrong; I know of no sysadmins that embrace a new init system; especially this one.

      the old ones worked, had some quirks but they WORKED. they were UNDERSTOOD. they were SUPPORTABLE. they had TEXT LOG FILES. and they didn't have DEPENDANCIES on the whole friggin graphical world.

      admins tend to admin servers. tell me: what the hell does a graphical set of libs have to do with headless servers, which is still the lion's share of what linux is about (not to mention embedded, more and more) ?

      it does not matter what 'appliance users' want or think they want. they could care less; as long as the system runs. but for those of us who have to admin things, change for change sake is a sign of a junior person.

      this whole systemd thing is going to be a textbook example of how NOT to shoe-horn things into a finely designed and architected system that has decades of stability and history to it.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    3. Re:Ask the Linux distributors to change by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Look everyone else is leaving init because it does have weaknesses. I do not administer Unix as much so you maybe more qualified to answer than myself.

      For me I found init frustrating. It lacks events and that is why Apple was the 1st to leave it. Lets say you had a powerbook that slept in your office and woke up in a hotel on a business trip with a different network? How would you program it to handle such a change with procedural (not event driven) if /else statements?

      This can be taken farther with a nginx box (event driven config which web admins hated to learn but love afterwards)that you want to program to handle a WAN connection down or a hack detected? SystemD can do these things.

      One of the things I love about FreeBSD over Linux is that it is simpler to read /etc files. #uncheck this to enable X vs if/else with data and logic scattered all over is a mess. Init had this too.

      With SMF you set the events and it is in an XML format.

      But text log files are a big SECURITY RISK. Example? I want to hack into server and hide my presence. 1st thing I do is edit your /var/log files when I install a rootkit.

      Graphical requirements? Haha that is gnome for ya. It links everything where something *might* touch really.

    4. Re:Ask the Linux distributors to change by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

      If they just got our of school, will be working with nobody with more experience than them, and it's a startup with no existing systems, systemd is a great choice for that sort of sysadmins perspective.

      Otherwise it fails to give anything compelling useful that could not be done before. It takes a reasonable amount of effort to move to using it with no gain.

      --
      No sir I dont like it.
    5. Re:Ask the Linux distributors to change by Uecker · · Score: 1

      But text log files are a big SECURITY RISK. Example? I want to hack into server and hide my presence. 1st thing I do is edit your /var/log files when I install a rootkit.

      You are deeply confused. Binary log files can be changed by a hacker as easily a text log files.

      You can protect yourself against this by cryptographically sealing the logs, but this works for text log files too.

      Binary log files are simply insane.

    6. Re:Ask the Linux distributors to change by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The problem is that if developers will go ahead and write systemd-only software (like GNOME guys are keen on doing), then any distro that wants to include that software will also have to switch to systemd, and that becomes a very strong leverage on distro maintainers when we're talking about popular software.

    7. Re:Ask the Linux distributors to change by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Unless my knowledge is wrong I assumed they were encrypted. Also if you are backing up your data for a re-image the files then are unreadable with a different key.

      But they were made binary on purpose which is what SMF on Solaris does as well.

    8. Re:Ask the Linux distributors to change by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Sure, I guess anybody else you do not like is always a "vocal minority".

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    9. Re:Ask the Linux distributors to change by gweihir · · Score: 1

      This whole systemd thing is going to be a textbook example of how NOT to shoe-horn things into a finely designed and architected system that has decades of stability and history to it.

      This is the only good thing about it: After it has been clear that it is a failure (and there is no way in hell it will ever be good with that design, "development life-cycle model" and developer attitude), it can serve as a crass negative example and should help to prevent any more insanity in that direction for a decade or two.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    10. Re:Ask the Linux distributors to change by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Look everyone else is leaving init because it does have weaknesses.

      You seem to be confused about the meaning of "everyone".

      But text log files are a big SECURITY RISK. Example? I want to hack into server and hide my presence. 1st thing I do is edit your /var/log files when I install a rootkit.

      That is dangerous nonsense. First, you can do exactly the same with binary logs. You can even do that with secure forward hashes like git used. The only protection against that is to keep copies somewhere else where the attacker cannot get at them and anybody halfway competent with regard to security is doing that. At the same time, binary logs are a security risk in themselves, as the attacker can simply patch the log-viewer to not show stuff. And the broken systemd binary logs are even worse: They filter stuff and they do not force flush and may just lose important things in a crash. As a crash is routinely the thing that attackers cause in looking for vulnerabilities from remote, this is exceptionally bad. Sane, working system log systems make very sure messages get reliably flushed to disk and remote receivers. Not doing so is on low amateur level with regards to security.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    11. Re:Ask the Linux distributors to change by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Encryption does not help at all for this problem. An attacker can simply query the logs and create new ones that are just as signed and encrypted. The only alternative are logs that cannot be read on the machine itself, and that is generally not a good idea. Also, systemd does not have any log protection of that sort or at least it is described nowhere. You may thinking of the classical rsyslog that has these features.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    12. Re:Ask the Linux distributors to change by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 1

      Yes. All that free software is being so unfairly kept from you.

    13. Re:Ask the Linux distributors to change by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I can't understand why people are asking developers to stop working on systemd or even abusing them.

      I don't recall seeing people asking developers to stop working on systemd. What people are asking for (myself included) is for people to stop sticking systemd into linux distributions before it's had a chance to mature or fail.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  26. Don't believe.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I don't believe lkcl wrote this. It has capital letters and punctuation, plus some of the words are spelled correctly.

    Not his style at all. I call a fake !

  27. Slight correction by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 1

    Choices were stark: use Windows (with SMB/CIFS Services), or use UNIX (with NFS and NIS).

    Novell Netware was still a player back then.

    1. Re:Slight correction by mark-t · · Score: 1

      The summary was talking about the late 1990's, not the late 1980's.

      Novell had been almost entirely supplanted by Windows NT server and other alternatives by the turn of the century, largely owing to the fact that just as the Internet was just starting to become the next really big thing, they were still entirely dependent on IPX/SPX instead of TCP/IP.. By the time they corrected this oversight, they had lost such a large percentage of the market in which they were once dominant that they never recovered. They were about relevant in the late 1990' s as Windows 3.1.

    2. Re:Slight correction by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 1

      The summary was talking about the late 1990's, not the late 1980's.

      Novell had been almost entirely supplanted by Windows NT server and other alternatives by the turn of the century, largely owing to the fact that just as the Internet was just starting to become the next really big thing, they were still entirely dependent on IPX/SPX instead of TCP/IP.. By the time they corrected this oversight, they had lost such a large percentage of the market in which they were once dominant that they never recovered. They were about relevant in the late 1990' s as Windows 3.1.

      You're off by by a few years. NCP over TCP was the default protocol in the late 90's (Netware 5, 5.1). NT 4 started Novell's slide to irrelevance, but it wasn't until Win2K came out with AD that the coffin was nailed shut.

  28. Pulseaudio misconceptions by DrYak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I didn't like (and never used) Pulseaudio either. If I wanted to play sound over a network I'd share my media directory.

    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.

    There are lots of situations where sound is routed to something which isn't the usual ALSA driver:
    - 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.
    - bluetooth, which is VERY common on portable devices (but also might be usefull on dekstops) isn't even a kernel driver. Sound is handled by a deamon communicating with the bluetooth stack. It has much more in common with networked sound than with ALSA.
    - 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.

    What I wouldn't do is run an unnecessary audio layer requiring application support - and that can do nothing else - in the form of a sound daemon I never wanted and didn't ask for.

    Pulseaudio doesn't require any special support. It can present an ALSA target to any ALSA-enabled software. Most current software don't even have a pulseaudio plugin, they just open the default ALSA device which happens to be one pulseaudio listends to and that just works.

    Software mixing you say? It's called dmix.

    Why the fuck do you want to round a *sound mixer* inside your *kernel space* ?! Do you run your video decoder and webbrowser there too ?
    I prefer to run unnecessary things like sound as daemons in userspace. Thank you very much.

    I moved away from Windows and towards open source years ago in order to have choice.

    And you're still free to disable pulseaudio and use dmix instead, if you want.
    Now indeed, for an init system, it's a bit more complicated to leave complete choice to the end user. Some specialist distro like Gentoo are able to offer you to switch between their default OpenRC and whatever you want.
    But the amount of work and risk of bugs in untested paths is rather high. So don't expect other distros to offer instant switch between systemd and upstart.

    I will have that choice whether or not most major distributions gargle the Poettering cock.

    Instead of being vulgar, maybe you should ask yourself why so many distributions are switching to systemd.
    Maybe, part of the reason would be that systemd solves actual real world problems that these distributions need fixed.
    Maybe that's because systemd people and Lennart Poettering actually ship code, instead of just sitting the whole day bitching and cursing on internet forums.
    Maybe if you didn't spent all your energy on whinning about systemd, and actually tried to *DO* something, to *FIX* the problems, and write an actual good solution, maybe your solution would be the one picked up by distros.

    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.). In other words, it's not the PID 1 that get stuffed with innapropriate functionnality. It's the people who wrote the PID1 that are also writing other daemons for extra functionnality, all different parts of the same project.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:Pulseaudio misconceptions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

      Because it is real time process with hard guarantees. It's ridiculous that my home media PC from 1995 desktop running SLS could play audio without studdering unlike my new Dell laptop from 2015 with an i7 running Ubuntu. The CPU clock speed alone is 33 times faster (3 GHz vs 90 MHz). Playing audio is something we need to do well. Getting rid of low quality userspace code written by inexperienced people and moving it into well written and better maintained kernel code could would be a win for users. pulseaudio is an embarrassment.

    2. Re:Pulseaudio misconceptions by raxx7 · · Score: 1

      dmix doesn't run in kernel space, it runs in user space.
      In an ugly way, by the way: the first application to load the dmix plugin forks() a process which run as the sound server.

      That said, dmix was a very simple sound server that mostly did the job but PulseAudio does it better and also implements a long list of wanted features.

    3. Re:Pulseaudio misconceptions by raxx7 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The other poster was wrong: dmix runs in user space. Linux never had kernel space mixing/resampling, unless you patch it with OSSv4.
      Which means your post is bullshit.

    4. Re:Pulseaudio misconceptions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

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

      Oh, I know: Because Lennart Poettering managed to make his friends doing GNOME development make GNOME depend on systemd, some now and seemingly more in the future, leaving the distributions with the choice between breaking GNOME and accepting systemd.

      And the "do something, fix the problems" talk you're spewing: I helped developed an alternate init system that is used by some couple of million installations. Systemd is attempting to occupy the entire space, destroying the possibility of different systems working.

      So yes, I in my opinion did my part to deal with this problem area. What have YOU done, apart from supporting the destruction of the existing ecosystem? Contributing code to systemd while not contributing the same code to compatibility layers counts as supporting destruction, as does posts like your above.

    5. Re:Pulseaudio misconceptions by Barsteward · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Because Lennart Poettering managed to make his friends doing GNOME development make GNOME depend on systemd, " - if you do some research, you'll find he actually enabled the software remain compatible with Consolekit but Gnome chose not to use it. read this for more info http://www.linuxvoice.com/inte...

      its quite amazing (and disappointing) just how much mis-information is out there and that people do no research before jumping on the bandwagon

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    6. Re:Pulseaudio misconceptions by statusbar · · Score: 5, Informative

      Software mixing you say? It's called dmix.

      Why the fuck do you want to round a *sound mixer* inside your *kernel space* ?! Do you run your video decoder and webbrowser there too ?
      I prefer to run unnecessary things like sound as daemons in userspace. Thank you very much.

      ... Because I need less than 125 microseconds mixing processing latency (12 samples at 96 kHz) so that in-ear monitor mixing for live performance can be useful - requires a total latency from microphone to wireless receiver to CPU to processing to wireless transmitter to in-ear monitor of less than 5 ms. Until Linux user tasks can be scheduled with this kind of hard real time timing accuracy, mixing real time audio in user tasks doesn't cut it for live audio. So I myself am required to do my mixing and processing for real time audio either in the kernel driver, in a RTLinux task (in kernel space), or in a Xenomai task (see xenomai.org ) running at a higher priority than Linux.

      --
      ipv6 is my vpn
    7. 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.'"
    8. Re:Pulseaudio misconceptions by davydagger · · Score: 1

      I helped developed an alternate init system that is used by some couple of million installations

      oh god, there is no alternative that is running on million installations.(no counting legacy inits) Not even OpenRC.

      I support code that actually works, and an init system that isn't an old hobbled together mess of bash scripts.

    9. Re:Pulseaudio misconceptions by davydagger · · Score: 3, Informative
      you can. you can re-compile the kernel for low-latency realtime by dicking around with compile time options. you can run jack instead of pulse, and you can have a fairly decent pro-audio production setup.

      That said, we are talking about consumer grade setups, and the default of 350hz timer, and pulse works just fine for that.

      Doing something that much more hardcore, re-compile the kernel, I do believe debian and ubuntu provide low-latency and realtime kernel along with packaging for related programs, and guides do exist for other distros.

      I do believe if you are a highly trained technician, you can be expected to know your tools better than the average consumer who doesn't want to fuck with it. If you're getting paid, its also job security.

    10. Re:Pulseaudio misconceptions by statusbar · · Score: 4, Informative

      Try the settings - standard kernel options for linux don't work for this.

      The only options that work today are using driver level code for audio processing or a real time Xenomai task.

      Please support Thomas Gleixner via the Linux Foundation to help to fix this limitation of Linux: http://lwn.net/Articles/572740...

      Until then, all high performance low latency audio processing in linux needs to not use any user level tasks.

      Jeff

      --
      ipv6 is my vpn
    11. Re:Pulseaudio misconceptions by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Funny, I remember web browsing and listening to mp3s on my 68040 40mhz Amiga 3000 just fine. But then it was actually designed for multitasking. When I moved to linux in 1999 it was because mainstream intel hardware was just too much more powerful. Because I was used to flawless multitasking at the time linux was the only available choice that made sense. In the decade and a half since that time I've seen great strides in linux usability but lately it seems like there are a lot of backward steps being taken. I guess it will work itself out down the road, it always has before.

    12. Re:Pulseaudio misconceptions by ruir · · Score: 1

      It is quite well known systemd was a political backed decision and not a technical one. Plus I will never understand how it made so fast to stable.

    13. Re:Pulseaudio misconceptions by sg_oneill · · Score: 1

      The Amiga also had a dedicated GPU and hardware audio acceleration a decade before the PC "invented" it, so its probably an unfair comparison.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    14. Re:Pulseaudio misconceptions by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      being in the kernel has little to do with being real time process with guarantees.

      it doesn't need "guarantees", it just needs to work and not lock up the distribution for whatever random reason..

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    15. Re:Pulseaudio misconceptions by walshy007 · · Score: 2

      Jack existed prior to, and has superior functions for (except for one use-case, high latency low power) everything that pulseaudio does.

      When pulseaudio was in development I observed some conversation between poettering and a lead jack developer. It became quite clear that poetterring had little to no idea why some of the design decisions being made at the time were quite crazy. Admittedly some aspects were fixed over the years since pulseaudios adoption, but the immense pain they created from the beginning was unnecessary.

      It really did come down to a combination of "not invented here" and "tablets are the future! fuck desktops" when pulseaudio was being made.

    16. Re:Pulseaudio misconceptions by walshy007 · · Score: 1

      and the default of 350hz timer, and pulse works just fine for that.

      Funnily enough, jack works just fine too for consumer grade setups.. and you're willing to have 4milliseconds latency like most people use, no kernel recompilation is necessary, just permissions for realtime threads needs to be enabled.

    17. Re:Pulseaudio misconceptions by hitmark · · Score: 1

      And that is why i don't have a sound notification set up on my email client.

      Seeing that the icon had changed is more than enough of a indication.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    18. Re:Pulseaudio misconceptions by hitmark · · Score: 1

      Not a GPU in the modern sense, as it lacked any kind of 3D acceleration. And you could get ATI boards for PC that did similar acceleration to what the Amiga chips did.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    19. 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.

    20. Re:Pulseaudio misconceptions by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      200mhz pentium 1 is plenty to play mp3 while doing other stuff.

      it was just the low amounts of memory for me that made it so that it made sense to stick to the console..

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    21. Re:Pulseaudio misconceptions by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Now indeed, for an init system, it's a bit more complicated to leave complete choice to the end user. Some specialist distro like Gentoo are able to offer you to switch between their default OpenRC and whatever you want.
      But the amount of work and risk of bugs in untested paths is rather high. So don't expect other distros to offer instant switch between systemd and upstart.

      What is Debian? Chopped liver?

      sudo apt-get install sysvinit-core systemd-shim systemd-sysv-

      Or...

      sudo apt-get install upstart systemd-shim systemd-sysv-

      http://crunchbang.org/forums/viewtopic.php?id=37871

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    22. Re:Pulseaudio misconceptions by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      I know the bug I filed was ignored, and I included good reproduction steps.

      What bug was that? If you don't provide a link we can't see what the problem was.

      I don't know why I bother posting this. I doubt the AC posted a bug report.

      I bet if there is any answer it will be some paranoid claim about the bug being deleted from Bugzilla (which would mean hacking the database by hand).

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    23. Re:Pulseaudio misconceptions by DUdsen · · Score: 2

      It is quite well known systemd was a political backed decision and not a technical one. Plus I will never understand how it made so fast to stable.

      It never became stable, look at their bug list then compare with any other stable init.

      Upstart have 10 part timers and dont see a lot of critical bugs sitting around, sysV and OpenRC is the same story, systemd have a bug queue the size of that for windows and more then 500 active developers, And every distribution adapting is have are facing more turmoil then they've seen since the late 90ies.

      At the end it might pen out but since systemd is redhat 3rd in just as many major releases it's still possible that a 4th init system get's adopted around the time 8 comes along, or that systemd gets put on a diet, and reduced to just a init system.

      It's political but it probably have as much to do with the irrelevance linux bestowed of the old giants at Xopen and FSF then it have to do with redhat.

    24. Re:Pulseaudio misconceptions by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      You're forgetting the other major player of the time: BeOS. Well I say major in terms of technical achievement, not market share sadly.

      BeOS was able to play an MP3 while browsing the web and chatting on IRC and still burn a CD without making a coaster (which, at the time, even on Linux you could usually only ensure by never doing ANYTHING else if you were burning disks because buffer underruns were fatal).

      BeOS achieved this incredible feat not by magic, hell it didn't even have significantly better performance than Linux - what it DID have was a massively better PERCEPTION of performance due to a few things.
      Firstly - it was a true microkernel, much like what HURD had wanted to be, but less ambitious and actually completed and these tasks were all being handled by very well threaded processes managed through that kernel.
      Secondly it's scheduler was tuned perfectly for desktop use, including the ability to interrupt kernel IO tasks to maintain reactivity on the desktop and mark some threads uninterruptible (like the CD burning thread so you wouldn't get underruns).

      The latter factor - a scheduler tweaked around desktop performance with interruptible kernel threads did make it into linux but not until several years later. I remember the difference it made when I first compiled a kernel the, then still experimental, new scheduler and for the first time I could copy a large directory full of files in KDE without the entire desktop basically freezing until the kernel had finished the file IO operation I just kicked off.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    25. Re:Pulseaudio misconceptions by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Oh, the machine on which I did that was a Celeron 266mhz for reference, rather slower than the P1 333 that the GP had.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    26. Re:Pulseaudio misconceptions by DrXym · · Score: 2

      The Amiga's Agnes GPU was a glorified blitter and the Paula audio "acceleration" was just a sound chip that had DMA so it could be kicked off to play sound stored in a memory buffer. Neither would help decompress an MP3 - the CPU would still have to decode the next chunk of audio in memory and trigger the audio chip to begin playing it. I'm not sure why anybody would want to play MP3s on an Amiga though and I very much doubt it left much CPU to do anything else, even on a 68030 or 68040 CPU.

    27. Re:Pulseaudio misconceptions by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh please stop. I can't read much further than this.

      You want me to stop, while you're being the fanboy. Why don't you stop riding Poettering's dick?

      There were many use cases for linux audio which were either completely absent or plainly broken before Pulseaudio matured

      Wrong. There was just one, hardware mixing was broken at the time. But now it works, and there is no reason for pulseaudio to exist.

      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.

      You accidentally the whole thing, there.

      Plugging in headphones while watching a movie is something that worked fine under ALSA, if your hardware was worth one tenth of one shit. I know, because I used to do that before pulseaudio was a thing.

      Most of the complaints about Linux sound were "hardware mixing doesn't work", then we got dmix, and then there was no real reason to have pulseaudio. But we still have it.

      If the problems were as easily solved as you claim the distros would have done it years ago.

      They did, but everyone and their mom started using pulseaudio, and then it had momentum.

      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

      Yes, some people acted lazy. Now you want to follow that up with more lazy, and damn the expense!.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    28. Re:Pulseaudio misconceptions by DrXym · · Score: 1
      The Amiga's GPU was a blitter, able to copy chunks of memory with bitplane / step / overlap / mask info over from address A to address B. Enough for moving sprites around but not much else. It also had something called copper which was a way to video interupt sync certain actions (e.g. switching the palette) but hardly meaningful by today's standards.

      The Amiga only really got a proper graphics card when 3rd parties like Picasso stepped in to provide one and even then "proper" only means analogous to Cirrus Logic style cards that appeared for Windows 3.1. Hardly GPU in the modern sense.

    29. Re:Pulseaudio misconceptions by ruir · · Score: 1

      Sorry by the mistake, how it made so fast to *Debian stable*.

    30. Re: Pulseaudio misconceptions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      this whole statement is bizaare. systemd should have to prove themselves to us. they are creating unstable software, and we file bug reports...they ignore them. somehow we are told
      to fork and shutup. no you assholes, you and pottering go fork your own systemd based distro, i forgot you did, its called redhat ;/. other distros are playing the copy game blindly,
      i really hope one of those bugs that were ignored comes back to bite one of them in the ass.

      TLDR: tired of being told to fork because i dont like systemd. our systems were fine until u(systemd) showed up.

    31. Re:Pulseaudio misconceptions by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      "It is quite well known systemd was a political backed decision and not a technical one." - can you back that up with a trusted citation?

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    32. Re:Pulseaudio misconceptions by Celarent+Darii · · Score: 1

      Yes there are alternatives that are running on several hundred million linux devices. Android, for instance does not use systemd.

      In fact, even on Android the init system is a hobbled together "mess of bash scripts"

      One of the advantages of this 'mess of bash scripts' is that I can add simply /bin/bash -x at the beginning of the script and can have very informative messages all the way down to the kernel level. This is very useful when you need to know WHY the process doesn't start. With systemd you have no such detail, and further if your machine doesn't boot you are so out of luck trying to read those logfiles.

      In fact those bash scripts are part of the software that are written in a common language, easily writable and have built in diagnostic faculties due to the fact that it is using bash. With systemd you need to invest in an entire new tool set.

      The main reason that binary log files ARE A TERRIBLE IDEA is that often to diagnose the problem you have to boot from another operating system in order to fix the broken one, and that may or may not be linux. Often it can't be the same operating system by definition because it won't boot into linux because of the problem.

      Seriously, working with systemd is like going back to windows where you need a special tool to even read a configuration file.

    33. Re: Pulseaudio misconceptions by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      so the answer is "no" then

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    34. Re:Pulseaudio misconceptions by segedunum · · Score: 1

      Why the fuck do you want to round a *sound mixer* inside your *kernel space* ?! Do you run your video decoder and webbrowser there too ? I prefer t o run unnecessary things like sound as daemons in userspace. Thank you very much.

      Because that's exactly where it should be. No other kernel interface says to an application "Sorry, this interface is in use. one at a time please". Stupid, but initially the whole whole rationale behind PulseAudio according to Poettering was to make mixing work and no software mixing code would be accepted in the kernel, which is odd, because no one had ever tried. The 'one interface at a time' thing would have been reason enough for Linus to consider the issue. No other kernel interface does it, and for good reason.

    35. Re:Pulseaudio misconceptions by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      I did you damn liar. I've opened several, and they've all been ignored.

      No you did not you lying troll. If you had made a bug report you could provide a link to it so we could see what actually happened.

      You ignore and delete bug reports.

      Ah, here it is, the paranoid claim.

      "you delete bug reports".

      This is simply not possible in any bug reporting system in use today (without hacking the database by hand).

      WE NEED stderr FOR TROUBELSHOOTING!

      And the notable feature of systemd/journald is that syserr is saved in the journal, not quickly scrolled off the top of the screen.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    36. Re:Pulseaudio misconceptions by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      In fact, even on Android the init system is a hobbled together "mess of bash scripts"

      You think that's a bash script?

      You might like to check out https://android.googlesource.com/platform/system/core/+/master/init/readme.txt

      Android does not use linux's /sbin/init, or sysvinit, or OpenRC or upstart or systemd. It has its own init system which does not run shell scripts (Android doesn't even have a shell by default AFAIK).

      (By the way, why all the bash love? Only an idiot would write init scripts in bash. Anyone worried about security would use a POSIX shell like dash).

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    37. Re:Pulseaudio misconceptions by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      You want me to stop, while you're being the fanboy. Why don't you stop riding Poettering's dick?

      What the fuck happened to you, man? Your ass used to be beautiful.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    38. Re:Pulseaudio misconceptions by Celarent+Darii · · Score: 1

      (By the way, why all the bash love? Only an idiot would write init scripts in bash. Anyone worried about security would use a POSIX shell like dash).

      I think on that we can agree 100%. POSIX for the win.

      I simply gave the link to show that Android does not use systemd, and actually has a "mess of scripts" in order to do its business.

    39. Re:Pulseaudio misconceptions by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      One configuration file in a non-turing complete language is not "a mess of scripts".

      If you read it it's an event driven system, closer to systemd than sysvinit.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    40. Re:Pulseaudio misconceptions by AntiSol · · Score: 1

      There are lots of situations where sound is routed to something which isn't the usual ALSA driver:
      - (bluetooth)
      - (bluetooth)

      Yes, lots of bluetooth-related reasons. But my bluetooth headset works perfectly well without pulse.

      - 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.

      So, something like jack? The much-better-at-doing-what-pulse-does-plus-a-whole-lot-more sound server that has been around a lot longer than pulse?

      Also, if you have good sound hardware, you have a 'monitor' port which allows you to record output without any special software at all (well, you'll need alsamixer or something to choose the recording channel)

      Pulseaudio doesn't require any special support.

      Except for a bunch of disk space to store the unnecessary binaries and a bunch of memory and CPU cycles to run the unnecessary daemon.

      It can present an ALSA target to any ALSA-enabled software. Most current software don't even have a pulseaudio plugin, they just open the default ALSA device which happens to be one pulseaudio listends to and that just works.

      This is its one saving grace - it's relatively easy to rip this monstrosity out without pain, since few apps know or care about it.

      Why the fuck do you want to round a *sound mixer* inside your *kernel space* ?! Do you run your video decoder and webbrowser there too ?
      I prefer to run unnecessary things like sound as daemons in userspace. Thank you very much.

      I don't want a sound mixer in kernel space, I want sound mixing to be done by the dedicated, super-cheap, 15-year old hardware I have which was built for exactly that purpose. But pulseaudio still tries to do software mixing for me. Because, you know, pulse is good!

      And you're still free to disable pulseaudio

      I did

      use dmix instead, if you want.

      I don't need it because I have actual audio hardware with multiple channels. But thanks.

      Now indeed, for an init system, it's a bit more complicated

      It's only more complicated because systemd tries to redefine the term 'init system' to also mean 'an init system plus a bunch of other stuff' and is completely disinterested in playing nice with all the other kids.

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

      Political pressure and underhanded tactics?

      Maybe, part of the reason would be that systemd solves actual real world problems that these distributions need fixed.

      Such as?

      Maybe that's because systemd people and Lennart Poettering actually ship code

      Yes, and we wish they would stop!

      Maybe if you didn't spent all your energy on whinning about systemd, and actually tried to *DO* something, to *FIX* the problems, and write an actual good solution, maybe your solution would be the one picked up by distros.

      But I have a perfectly functional init system which isn't systemd. Why should I write a new one?

    41. Re:Pulseaudio misconceptions by ruir · · Score: 1

      Why do I have to do your work? Use google and you will find out Debian committee is nowadays heavily infiltrated by ex-RedHat people.

  29. Red Hat Network by lucm · · Score: 1

    The other day I found out that it's impossible to use yum on a Red Hat machine with an expired RHN subscription. It proved quite unpleasant to work my way around it, as wget was not installed.

    Pretty soon we'll need a valid subscription to start daemons, something made possible by "improvements" like systemd.

    This subscription model is becoming quite the rage (Microsoft, Adobe, Red Hat, etc) and this is leading real fast to absurd situations like in the novel from Philip K. Dick (Ubik) where the guy has to pay a few dimes each time he wants to use the door of his apartment.

    --
    lucm, indeed.
    1. Re:Red Hat Network by kthreadd · · Score: 2

      The other day I found out that it's impossible to use yum on a Red Hat machine with an expired RHN subscription. It proved quite unpleasant to work my way around it, as wget was not installed.

      Of course you should have a valid subscription, otherwise you won't get security updates. It happens every now and then that I run into people that run five year old RHEL installations which they have never updated because they either are too cheap to pay for it or have never heard about CentOS.

      Pretty soon we'll need a valid subscription to start daemons, something made possible by "improvements" like systemd.

      It don't understand how you made that conclusion.

      This subscription model is becoming quite the rage (Microsoft, Adobe, Red Hat, etc) and this is leading real fast to absurd situations like in the novel from Philip K. Dick (Ubik) where the guy has to pay a few dimes each time he wants to use the door of his apartment.

      You have to pay if you want to continue to get binary software from Red Hat, you can always get it in source form even if you're not under a subscription.

    2. Re:Red Hat Network by lucm · · Score: 1

      The other day I found out that it's impossible to use yum on a Red Hat machine with an expired RHN subscription. It proved quite unpleasant to work my way around it, as wget was not installed.

      Of course you should have a valid subscription, otherwise you won't get security updates. It happens every now and then that I run into people that run five year old RHEL installations which they have never updated because they either are too cheap to pay for it or have never heard about CentOS.

      The point is not about how someone should use or not use RHN subscriptions, or whether they should have gone with CentOS if they didn't plan to renew a subscription. Your advice on those topics is not needed here and is probably not needed anywhere you typically provide it.

      The issue is that when you install Red Hat, yum becomes dependent on the repos that are behind Red Hat's paywall. Of course you can reconfigure yum - provided that you have an easy way to do it (try without wget or make or even unzip).

      systemd is something that could make the same lock-in approach work on daemons and who knows what else.

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    3. Re:Red Hat Network by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

      Of course you can reconfigure yum - provided that you have an easy way to do it (try without wget or make or even unzip).

      Eh, presuming you have some form of text editor (or for that matter, cat), the mount command, and the RedHat ISO, you can trivially reconfigure yum to use the DVD image. No subscription required. Just make a file in /etc/repos.d/ that looks like:
      [somename]
      name=some name
      baseurl=file:///path/to/mounted/dvd
      enabled=1
      gpgcheck=1 #(or 0 if you're too lazy to import the redhat GPG key)

      We do something like this on our servers that are not allowed to connect to the internet, we sync the official redhat repo to one box and the others get their updates from it.

  30. Let's give this some relevance. by HBI · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I was in a meeting last week with some representatives of a large defense contractor and Microsoft. The two of them don't get along well. The defense contractor people (not the MS people) brought up the whole systemd thing as an equalizer between Windows and Linux, and not in a positive way.

    The bottom line is that I have a hard time believing it, but Microsoft is actually making inroads in the server market again. Linux adoption where I work is pretty much stalled, and the things it is used for are mostly virtualization hosts, rather than stuff that actually performs a function. While the systemd thing is just a tiny blip compared to the other reasons this is happening, this shit does not help.

    I'm also not going to waste my own capital evangelizing the OS if significant engineering effort is going into something that is, at least in the short term, reducing the reliability of the operating system. That's a stupid idea and pissing off your evangelists is, too. Everyone forgets where the market share came from...and figures that it is fungible with whatever stupid follow-on idea they have, once they have said share.

    Red Hat is about to learn this the hard way.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    1. Re:Let's give this some relevance. by Zarjazz · · Score: 2

      Red Hat is about to learn this the hard way.

      I hope so. We've put our upgrade from RHEL 6 to version 7 on permanent hold basically because of systemd and all other associated forced-down-your-throat changes they have made. This is no longer a seamless, non-intrusive upgrade unlike every previous major release.

      For desktop users, yeah I understand it's probably a non-issue for them. But if you are a sysadmin managing thousands of servers with possibly tens of thousands of VM's on top of that it's a major issue.

    2. Re:Let's give this some relevance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Red Hat is about to learn this the hard way.

      I think they already know. The dozen or so times I've talked to them since October about systemd-created problems, their employees seemed completely fed-up. Their patience is done. They know they screwed their customers, and their support is having a very hard time keeping up with attempting to help customers. Swallowing stderr and higher-priority syslog messages makes it very difficult for them to troubleshoot problems.

    3. Re:Let's give this some relevance. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Linux is done.

      No empire falls but for an enemy within.

      Here it was the "geek"feminist-sjw-pottering circle jerk/mutual envanj group of the last few years that did it.

    4. Re:Let's give this some relevance. by greg1104 · · Score: 1

      Clueless defense contractors are numerous. But since the core of the US government purchasing is Open Source First, there is little hope of Microsoft regaining any serious hold in that market.

    5. Re:Let's give this some relevance. by lkcl · · Score: 1

      Red Hat is about to learn this the hard way.

      ... and they're taking everyone else down with them in the short to medium term...

    6. Re:Let's give this some relevance. by HBI · · Score: 1

      Platitudes are nice - realities of PMs that have budget lines are another thing. It's just a compliance thing. You say "OSS was not available to meet this arbitrary criteria" and you are good to go.

      Relying on the GSA to save Linux in the USG is not showing much cognizance of how government procurement really works. If the centrally mandated objectives meant crap, Windows would never have made it in as a desktop.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  31. Why are distros moving to systemd? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    RedHat.

    And the design of systemd which means systemic and wideranging changes in many packages making "not systemd" a large change in programming. If systemd were not being pushed by RedHat but by, for example, a bit player like Gentoo, then the widespread changes would stop it working. See upstart for another example of a wideranging change that wasn't pushed by a big enough player. But once it starts being done, either others have to backport or fork or conditionally code in systemd use or they have to use systemd.

    And at that point, it's not "choose systemd", it's "choose not to maintain a fork".

    A very different kettle of mackerel.

    1. Re:Why are distros moving to systemd? by TheCarp · · Score: 2

      Wait so, distros are using systemd because redhat chose it.... meaning a big enough player pushed it? However, this is NOT the case for upstart, which, is what Redhat chose last time and is replacing systemd with now?

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    2. Re:Why are distros moving to systemd? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah wrong package. I meant the parallel init scheme whose name I can't remember but it was something like initng or something.

      Ubuntu pushed (well, attempted and failed) to get a few other changes to the system in for others because they'd invented it and were already ahead of the game (a bit). But other distros didn't want it so only a few took it on.

      See also Gnome 3.

      KDE4 required RH to push it and it started off worse than Gnome3.

    3. Re:Why are distros moving to systemd? by exomondo · · Score: 1

      And at that point, it's not "choose systemd", it's "choose not to maintain a fork".

      But systemd didn't exist before, the systemd stuff should already be in a conditional that checks whether it is even there.

    4. 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.

    5. Re:Why are distros moving to systemd? by DrXym · · Score: 1

      Preposterous. What Fedora does in its own dist doesn't mean other dists must do the same. Dists have chosen to go with systemd because it offers a solution to the well known issues with SysVInit when supporting a modern client or server.

    6. Re:Why are distros moving to systemd? by DrXym · · Score: 1

      Quite obviously 3) although most people are and will continue to be perfectly content with systemd.

    7. Re:Why are distros moving to systemd? by ruir · · Score: 1

      No need to do it quickly. For now, in Debian 8, in a server environment without graphical interfaces, it is perfectly feasible to avoid systemd using package pinning when upgrading or preseeding when installing. Future will tell where we are headed. I have already starting launching FreeBSD boxen in my test systems.

    8. Re:Why are distros moving to systemd? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > The reality is that daemontols solved problems that systemd did tools, but Dan J. Bernstein wrote the world's most ridiculous not-really-open-source license, so no one could use it.

      Fixed That For You. Upstart and systemd many other init tools basically copy the structure of daemontools, but DJB shot himself through the foot by insisting on a software license that said "Waaah!!!! You can't include your modified binaries, you can only publish patches and make them compile their own! That will keep anyone from deciding that the the File System Hierarchy actually matters, and let me wee-wee-wee all the way home all over the base of the "/" fileysystem with whatever I want!!! I'm smarter than people who write file systems!"

      Like Dan's other tools, such as djbdns and qmail, it solved a lot of problems but no one could make Dan's ego fit into their local source tree, so it foundered.

    9. Re:Why are distros moving to systemd? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Na uha. People keep INSISTING that it is the vast majority of users who hate systemd. Linux is doomed!

      I'm not quite sure how the vast majority somehow exclude the maintainers, developers, and decision makers of the major distributions and the distributions that base off them, however the doom is certain. At least according to most of slashdot.

    10. Re:Why are distros moving to systemd? by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

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

      It shouldn't be news to you.

      When it comes to big enterprise systems, Ubuntu does not even begin to compare to RHEL. Ubuntu is mostly used by home users who don't pay, and don't need commercial support. Ubuntu is not even it's own distro, it's based on Debian.

      Red Hat is a $10 billion corporation that is obligated to increase shareholder value. Monopolizing Linux would certainly increase shareholder value. This is a long term play to get rid of any real competition. Fedora will remain free, Fedora is something like the beta version of RHEL. Red Hat gives away Fedora like Microsoft gives away Windows-10.

    11. Re:Why are distros moving to systemd? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Well what may be of news to you is that Linux isn't only about big enterprise. Ubuntu is one of the biggest players on the market at the moment. It's based on Debian you say? So what? Try and turn Debian into Ubuntu without the Ubuntu repository. Oh what you can't? Well of course because much of what Ubuntu has done is developed it's own software.

      The idiocy of your argument should become apparent when you realised until they decided to adopt systemd, Ubuntu were actually using a feature complete and fully working alternate init system. Not one borrowed form Debian, but one they actively developed and offered to other distributions.

      Not bad for a 2-bit player to re-create from scratch the piece of code that sits closest to the kernel eyh. But yeah clearly they can't do anything without a $10bn market cap. There's only so much you can do with $30m in yearly revenue.

  32. Re:dafuq? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "with libsystemd0 removed"

    It's clearly about libsystemd.

  33. Deliberate destruction by a secret agency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Perhaps there is an underlying secret purpose in implementing SystemD, similar to the hidden purpose in saying TrueCrypt is insecure and trying to get people to use Microsoft encryption software.

  34. Re:The Unix beard is strong with this one by sjames · · Score: 1

    We don't want it. Get over it.

  35. Does it work? by msobkow · · Score: 1

    That's what it comes down to for me: Does it work?

    I honestly don't care about all the bleating and bitching about systemd vs. traditional startups vs. makefile startups vs. whatever-the-flavour-of-the-week is. What I care about is whether it will run the software I use, which is essentially Java, Eclipse, Ant, and as many databases as will install on the system (if it won't install on Linux, I can run it on my Windows laptop, and do.)

    While I consider myself a "developer" because I do a lot of hobby programming, I am not and never have been responsible for system administration. My system never boots unattended as is the case with virtual machines in a cluster, so the issues people have raised about logging and such just flat out don't matter to me.

    If I'm concerned about anything, it's about issues like the instability of the latest NVidia drivers that Debian pushed for Squeeze. While my system used to stay up for weeks at a time, the display drivers now crap on the system more than once a week. That's just flat-out shameful when you consider that I only have to reboot my Windows box once a month to apply patches nowadays.

    Systemd? Couldn't care less.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:Does it work? by msobkow · · Score: 1

      Obligatory car analogy: Worrying about systemd seems like worrying about what brand of spark plugs are in your new car.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    2. Re:Does it work? by Zarjazz · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Obligatory car analogy: Worrying about systemd seems like worrying about what brand of spark plugs are in your new car.

      Only a valid analogy if those new spark plugs also want to control your entry system, brakes, transmission and radio too.

    3. Re:Does it work? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      yes and no.

      If you are gray beard with 20 years of Unix admin experience you are probably reading this with cherry red face with anger as IT DOES NOT WORK WITH MY SCRIPTS!!

      If you are starting out and want to write your own scripts and are not used to one way of doing it then it is no big deal. It works out of the box and was lightning fast compared to init in centOS 6 in my vm.

      SystemD has been in use in Fedora for many years now with no issues. The ones you see whining are those who have lots of time invested in administering Unix and Linux systems with hundreds of man hours for scripts for init to handle SANS, raids, weird conditions for their apps and so on. They bitched too when Sun left init for SMF a few years ago. Now they do not mind as they needed to learn it remain certified with Oracle.

    4. Re:Does it work? by msobkow · · Score: 1

      But that's just it, isn't it? Ubuntu switched to Upstart. AIX has it's own methodology. HP-UX probably has another one. OS/X, still another.

      You learn the tools you have available to do the job; you don't sit there like a whiny-assed 2-year old bitching that you had to learn something new for the first time in 20 years!

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    5. Re:Does it work? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      I do have more limited experience in the server unix realm compared to working with other technologies.

      Perhaps SystemD is a poor implementation?

      FreeBSD also is thinking about using an event driven init too :-) ... boy I can not wait to see the look and read the comments on /. when news gets out for all those who switched. hehehe

      But in truness not all change is good. Look at Metro, Gnome 3, pulse audio, Vista, etc. Many slashdotters have turned conservative and some even proudly run XP. This would be -1 or +5 funny 10 years ago to see such comments like that but now they are +5 insightful. Perhaps Slashdot is aging too.

      But yes init is not perfect and was designed for no events at all. No changes for servers sitting in a computer room having 1 daemon and +35 cmd line tools at the most circa 1985. It is not designed for laptops falling and sleep and waking up on a different network nor servers connected to the internet which need to act differently when hacked etc.

    6. Re:Does it work? by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

      Windows works, use that. Leave real UNIX/Linux people alone.

      > Systemd? Couldn't care less.

      Then why use Linux? If you don't mind vendor lock-in, and letting a big corporation make your decisions for you, then use a commercial OS. Microsoft does proprietary better than Red Hat.

    7. Re:Does it work? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      If you are gray beard with 20 years of Unix admin experience you are probably reading this with cherry red face with anger as IT DOES NOT WORK WITH MY SCRIPTS!!

      But it does. systemd runs sysvinit scripts just fine.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    8. Re:Does it work? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Obligatory car analogy: Worrying about systemd seems like worrying about what brand of spark plugs are in your new car.

      It's more like worrying about what brand of PCM is in your new car. And I, for one, am happier with good old Hitachi that keeps on chugging forever and is cheap to replace than with the latest fancy-pants Bosch with its downwire drivers, high cost, and high likelihood of failure — plus its fancy, failure-prone solderless connections.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  36. Re:SystemD may not be what we think it is. by RightwingNutjob · · Score: 1

    Meh. Those who know don't talk and those who talk don't know. Sometimes it's coordinated evil, sometimes it's just a single idiot who manages to gain influence by a combination of dumb luck and people being to disgusted to argue.

  37. 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.

    1. Re:Give it a rest by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 2

      The people making that decision don't own and operate my servers, so they're not qualified to make that decision for me. I depend on those servers. I do not want them dependent on software that hasn't been in production service for long enough to have all the issues wrung out (and there are always issues when new software goes into production, I don't care how much the dev team may wish otherwise). I'll look at systemd late this summer and see how it's shaking out, and make any decision about adopting it next fall at the earliest.

    2. Re:Give it a rest by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Seriously? You think? Got some other convenient lies up your sleeve?

      There are quite a few people outside of Red Hat that are qualified to judge the merit of systemd and it does not look good.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    3. Re:Give it a rest by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

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

      And we know why, too. You don't have to be a vintner to appreciate a good wine, or to identify vinegar.

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

      I believe in vaccinations, but I don't believe in this year's flu vaccination. And oddly, millions of dollars are spent advertising how wonderful it is and how it will save you from eternal damnation, but pennies are spent on disseminating the information that they mispredicted this year's flu strain and getting the shot is a fuckoff waste of time at best.

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

      Well, I'm with you here. The only people I want to go after around global warming are people making specific predictions other than "bad".

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Give it a rest by lkcl · · Score: 1

      systemd is being implemented in distributions because a) it is good

      you are _brainwashed_. absolutely brainwashed. read the independent assessment here:
      http://www.softpanorama.org/Co...

      and b) the people making that decision are the ones qualified to do so.

      FUCK you. fuck you and your attitude thinking you have the right to tell me or ANYONE that i should bow down to other people's decisions. FUCK you and fuck off. you have NO right to tell me that i must worship the ground on which other people walk.

      *I* have the freedom to make my *own* assessment. that is my right. and it's people like you who are not helping, by saying "yeah we should all trust someone else to make our decisions for us".

      historically we know that when we abdicate responsibility to others for important decisions, it doesn't go so well, does it? what is _wrong_ with you??

      sorry, but... you really gave me a shock there, i couldn't believe what you wrote.

  38. Re:Looks like a false flag comment. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    It's possible, but it seems a bit conspiracy-theorist to me.

  39. Systemd benefit: malware by mveloso · · Score: 1

    One good thing about a startup daemon that controls everything is it's much easier to compromise than a hodgepodge of manually configured and custom tailored systems. With systemd it's target once, compromise everywhere.

    1. Re:Systemd benefit: malware by gweihir · · Score: 1

      The NSA TAO is probably already filling up their databases with attack vectors. This thing is a treasure-trove, and because the developers are incompetent and too arrogant to listen to advice, there is ZERO need to place any backdoors! Just make sure Red Hat management keeps this train wreck funded and "strategic". With the amount of money Red Hat gets from the US military, that should be really simple.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  40. Re:dafuq? by Barsteward · · Score: 1

    look at the title of the summary for the answer. the rest of the so called "summary" is just a list of flamebait links and commentary, its not even a summary of an article

    --
    "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  41. Re:The Unix beard is strong with this one by sjames · · Score: 1

    Six whole people voted and the tie had to be broken by the chair. Not exactly a powerful mandate.

  42. Mod parent down by Prune · · Score: 2

    Why the fuck do you want to round a *sound mixer* inside your *kernel space* ?! Do you run your video decoder and webbrowser there too ?

    Because musicians also use computers, and latency -- which is higher if you're going through user space -- is a big no-no. While some latency is acceptable, any trained musician will easily hear 5 ms latency if he's recording, especially with voice. Since FIR filters and the hardware audio chain already add latency, there's really no room for the mixer to add much. Pro audio is actually a major application for real-time Linux kernels: https://wiki.archlinux.org/ind... And saying "but only musicians need this" would totally miss the point that almost everyone starts as hobbyists and amateurs, and the capability should be there already, especially because it's not a big problem to have it -- in-kernel mixing has been available for a long time and works fine.

    --
    "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    1. Re:Mod parent down by gnupun · · Score: 1

      While some latency is acceptable, any trained musician will easily hear 5 ms latency if he's recording, especially with voice. Since FIR filters and the hardware audio chain already add latency, there's really no room for the mixer to add much.

      So why can't you just shift the voice back 5 ms before integrating it with other instruments in the song? This is assuming the voice was recorded separately from other musical instruments.

    2. Re: Mod parent down by iluvcapra · · Score: 1

      Sometimes you aren't recording the voice and instruments at different times, sometimes you're using your DAW software to create the monitor mixes the performers are cueing to.

      Once you've recorded everything latency doesn't matter but people do need the live mixing to be in sync.

      (That said, people trying to do this at 96k should probably just do this in hardware...)

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
  43. Re:Do people who post on lkml actually know englis by lkcl · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Really, someone should get a dictionary for their birthday and read the definition for "unilateral" lol.

    that's in.... *counts on fingers*... 9? days? :)

    ok so let's look it up... a random google search shows these:

    1. Of, on, relating to, involving, or affecting only one side: "a unilateral advantage in defense" (New Republic).
    2. Performed or undertaken by only one side: unilateral disarmament.
    3. Obligating only one of two or more parties, nations, or persons, as a contract or an agreement.
    4. Emphasizing or recognizing only one side of a subject.
    5. Having only one side.
    6. Tracing the lineage of one parent only: a unilateral genealogy.
    7. Botany Having leaves, flowers, or other parts on one side only.

    yep. definitions 1 through 5 are perfectly relevant. unilateral. meaning that pottering made the decision and (2) did not consult any of us. he claims to be "listening to users" yet (4) in fact ignores everything they tell him and carries on regardless. he has therefore violated the implicit software freedom contract (3) between users and developers who choose to be of service to others.

    so yeah. it would appear that yes i really do know english, if only by accident.

  44. Mod parent up by Prune · · Score: 1

    You nailed it and it's perfect; there's nothing to add. GG

    --
    "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
  45. Re:SystemD may not be what we think it is. by Barsteward · · Score: 1

    "Posting anonymously (and behind seven proxies) for obvious reasons." - yes, because your post is highly embarrassing for you. not a fact or citation in view to back up your post

    --
    "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
  46. Have a personal Debian box in AWS. by jesdynf · · Score: 1

    Ran an update, a bunch of packages are now in a weird dependency loop with systemd fingered as the culprit.

    I could solve it, but I'm not paid to give a shit about systemd, so when I get some time I'm just going to replace the instance with CentOS-derived (but systemd lacking) Amazon Linux -- it's the first time I've ever chosen to move a machine off Debian. A decision I'll be making... about as many times as I have Debian machines left. Failure has consequences; better luck next distro, I guess.

    --
    Yahoo! Pipes are awesome. How awesome? http://pipes.yahoo.com/jesdynf/slashdot
    1. Re:Have a personal Debian box in AWS. by hendrikboom · · Score: 1

      If you can wait a while, you might find it simpler to switch to devuan. When ready, it's supposed to be a but of pinning and a new line for /etc/apt/sources.list. You still keep the use of debian repositories, with a few different packages provided form devuan.

  47. Devuan releases pre-alpha ISO. FK systemd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    https://lists.dyne.org/lurker/...

    re all,

    Here is a pre-alpha sneak preview of Devuan at the current state of
    affairs. It is my valentine to Franco: despite we probably never met in
    person, I love him. He is really dedicated to this project and putting
    hard work in it. I also fell in love with another VUA, whose name I
    won't tell, but he is the one hosting the gitlab, running very well.

    http://mirror.debianfork.org/d...

    http://mirror.debianfork.org/d...

    http://mirror.debianfork.org/d...

    do not use this in production, this is an internal preview (not even an
    alpha) for the Devuan enthusiastic community and for those wondering if
    we'll really make it: yes we will.

    Journalists and DWN editors reading: please do not link this. We will
    have another more public release soon :^) Let it be a private valentine

    Also please note that this is not yet rebranded, so it says Debian
    almost everywhere. Didn't find the time for that yet.

    default user is 'devuan'
    password is always 'devuan', also for root

    sources are those of Debian 8 RC1 jessie
    plus the mods here: https://git.devuan.org/groups/...
    and packed with the SDK https://git.devuan.org/devuan/...

    happy hacking

    --
    Jaromil, Dyne.org Free Software Foundry (est. 2000)
    We are free to share code and we code to share freedom
    Web: https://j.dyne.org/ Contact: https://j.dyne.org/c.vcf
    GPG: 6113 D89C A825 C5CE DD02 C872 73B3 5DA5 4ACB 7D10
    Confidential communications: https://keybase.io/jaromil

    ---

    Pretty fucking boss.

  48. Write something better by thisisauniqueid · · Score: 1

    Systemd is as worrying to me as the next user, especially since there are *still* stupid PulseAudio bugs that have persisted for years since Lennart got his hands on the audio system. But since I don't have the time or inclination to write a better alternative, I'm just sitting back and watching the show, and therefore I guess I need to be OK with the outcome.

  49. What I did : Hold policykit-1 to version 0.105-4 by csoh · · Score: 1

    (Boilerplate warning - this info is as of 2015-02-16 only, this info may be incomplete or incorrect, this may not work for you, or your environment)
    For wheezy -> jessie users who do not want to manually compile packages AND keep systemd out of the system.
    First, go to "options->preferences" menu on the aptitude and uncheck "Install recommended packages automatically" checkbox(or do equivalent on synaptic). This will also make your system more managable(stops installing unwanted packages).
    Then HOLD OR DOWNGRADE POLICYKIT-1 PACKAGE TO 0.105-4 - this is the last version that don't depend on systemd related library. If you don't have this version, get this version manually from net and install it using dpkg.
    I think all bad things starts from this package. - if you hold this(and be careful), you'll still be able to enjoy many of the improvements of jessie without installing most of the systemd crap(even systemd-shim). After this, there will be 2 problems left to your general desktop user experiences.
    One is about login environment -> this relates to the fact that not long ago most of the display managers(gdm3,kdm,lightdm) became dependent on logind included in systemd(again corrected in kdm,lightdm so these 2 are safe again) - if you're paranoid, just use slim or wdm or xdm(since these 3 are ugly, you'll need some additional tweaking) instead and DON'T FSCKING USE GNOME3(gone are the days when one can install gtk/part of gnome2 libs only freely to use standalone(not gnome related) gtk2 programs. Gnome3 become more intermingled like windows) or XFCE4(core functions of xfce depends on libpam-systemd). If you are using LXDE, don't install lxde task since this depends on several packages which again depends on systemd. Install lxde-core task instead and invidual packages you want to use on LXDE(oh, and get/tweak pygtk-shutdown from net instead of existing shutdown button of LXDE to enable shutdown/reboot). Other simple WMs don't need to worry(just worry about DMs).
    The other is printing. CUPS on jessie depends on colord which depends on libsystemd0 and policykit-1 so unless you use CUPS on wheezy version there is no simple way to prevent libsystemd0 from being installed on your system, but you can still prevent other systemd crap if you hold polcykit-1(systemd, libpam-systemd, etc.)
    Packages to avoid like plague - policykit-1(0.105.5 or later) - Unlike others who are helpful about reducing unnecessary systemd dependency, the maintainer of this package is vehement about keeping libpam-systemd(and dropping seemingly still working consolekit) dependency to this nearly essential package for desktop(see bugreport #747105 yourself), libpam-systemd - this package depends on systemd directly even with systemd-shim present on system.

  50. It's always a bad sign by mveloso · · Score: 1

    "Your stuff is a f*cked up as Windows, so we might as well use Windows."

    1. Re:It's always a bad sign by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Sad, but that is what it boils down to.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  51. Re:Here we go again. by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    At least FreeBSD does not puke over POSIX, or the UNIX philosophy.

    At least FreeBSD is not a hostile take-over by a $10 billion corporation trying to enforce vendor lock-in.

  52. Re:I switched to OSX by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    I think all the systemd advocates should do the same. Either OSX, or Windows.

    If you want proprietary, go proprietary. Let a big corporation make your computer decisions for you - it's not worth the bother. Screw log files and the other crap, let the sysadmins deal with that.

    If you hate POSIX, and the UNIX philosophy, then please go away, and leave us real UNIX/Linux people alone.

  53. Hardware sound mixing by DrYak · · Score: 1

    and hardware audio acceleration

    Yup, Amiga had hardware sound mixing (4 channels in this case. that's where 4-channel MOD where born from).

    PC from back then had some form too. (High-end sound cards like Gravis UltraSound were basically multi-channel, like souped up version of Amiga. Creative Sound Blaster AWE could mix samples as part of their wave table synthesis or even stream "instruments" from the main RAM, i.e.: actually stream a second audio track and mix it - that's what most player back then used to do to avoid grabbing and locking the "waveout". Starting from Creative Sound Blaster Live! each software sending its own separate stream and the card mixing them was the norm, ...)

    Hardware sound mixing was the norm on most high-end gaming machines. It's only recently that "only a glorified DAC" that were common on laptops and office box started to become the norm in high-end stations, once the CPU had enough omph that sound processing become an insignificant burden.

    Hence the need of sound mixing daemons, hence the rise of pulse audio in linux world and hence the equivalent whose name I've forgotten in Windows.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  54. JACK is better for you. by DrYak · · Score: 4, Informative

    ... Because I need less than 125 microseconds mixing processing latency (12 samples at 96 kHz) so that in-ear monitor mixing for live performance can be useful - requires a total latency from microphone to wireless receiver to CPU to processing to wireless transmitter to in-ear monitor of less than 5 ms.

    If low latency in professionnal audio setting is your target, then there's already specialized software for that: JACK.
    It's specially designed for what you want, and as widespread usage in the field.

    Or might as well go for a hardware solution.

    Use the right tool for the right job. Otherwise you end up trying to cram extra requirement into a tool which wasn't designed for it.

    There are even special distribution which are geared toward pro needs and are tuned with this kind of tools.
    (Dynebolic as an example)

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:JACK is better for you. by Th0th · · Score: 1

      Otherwise you end up trying to cram extra requirement into a tool which wasn't designed for it.

      Ironic, considering this statement was made in a systemd thread....

      --
      "BadTimes will make you fall in love with a penguin" - Laika
  55. So is SystemD or the old ways moar secure then?? by HongPong · · Score: 1

    Is SystemD and these related libraries going to actually be more secure? It seems like init scripts were not a source of disaster earlier. The kludgy if-then scripts, while somewhat embarassing, seem predictable enough in their effects. I wonder if the converting of this idiosyncratic system into one big spaghetti monster will create more vulnerabilities.

    Is the logging too verbose like a firehose to follow what's important? And would this help them charge money for DevOps? Where has the center of this conversation been? Without digging around Slashdot seems to be the only venue this gets any attention. Is it a result of centralization in the open source world, wherein relatively few people decide the fate of upstream distros?

    Even if it works fine and solves some major problems, still: what can be done to decentralize the open source world? Can maybe SystemD get a kind of POSIX like clearly defined set of functions, and truly be made hot swappable for something less bulky and possibly devious? What would it take to unplug or supplant SystemD's role in GNOME?

  56. It used to be fun ... by jandersen · · Score: 1

    It's always sad when these things happen. Personally, I'm not fanatical about this issue, but I hate it when I am dictated what to do and think, and how to work - this was my main reason for getting off Windows ASAP, and then later GNOME.

    What makes it so sad is that it used to be fun - I loved playing around with DOS and later Windows, and even enjoyed programming for Windows 3, but I stopped enjoying what I was doing when they got imperialistic. The same thing with GNOME - when they started on 'simplifying' things on the desktop by taking away options and dumbing down the interface (a better way would have been to allow a form of expert mode - those of us with that ambition would be happy with vi and a config file).

    And now this? I honestly don't mind, unless it forces me to use other things that I don't want, or gets in the way of what I do for a living. One of the things that annoy me at the moment is the drive towards turning Debian into a laptop/tablet OS, with lots of automatic crap going on as you log on to the desktop: network manager and the whole 'semantic desktop' or whatever it is called. It may make sense if you live your whole life on a portable device with wifi and USB, but I work on servers and I want my desktop PC to be a server with a desktop for convenience; I have no liking for tablety fashion statements.

    Ironically, I chose Debian because it tends to be conservative, focused on SW freedom, but it worries me that they've recently looked like they're getting into bed with the GNOME crowd and now also systemd, if I understand things correctly. The fun - not to mention my ability to be productive - is under pressure.

    1. Re:It used to be fun ... by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

      > Then for f**ks sake, apt-get install something_else and stop bitching.

      It is not as easy as that. Systemd is taking over everything.

      http://giphy.com/gifs/hungry-systemd-5xtDarAgrjoOrBxSVYk

    2. Re:It used to be fun ... by raxx7 · · Score: 1

      *bullshit*
      It is that easy. Because some sane and nice people who care about not using systemd as pid1 have actually put in the work to do so.

      systemd is only taking in everything as much as nobody is willing/able to provide comparable functionality.
      Eg, there's no credible replacement for systemd-logind. ConsoleKit is unmaintained and less powerful. Developers of desktop environments and distributions want to take advantage of it's functionality and avoid the trouble of trying to get shit done using ConsoleKit.

      But enterprising souls (ok, mainly from Ubuntu) have come up with enough functionality (cgmanager) to run systemd-logind without having to run systemd.

  57. Re:Choice is good.Backup is better. by stooo · · Score: 1

    >>... destroying my business by losing access to all data on a critical business laptop ...

    You should backup.
    And also do experiments on a test computer.

    --
    aaaaaaa
  58. Re:Looks like a false flag comment. by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

    I'm pretty sure some of the "pro-systemd" stuff from AC's is actually trolls. (You know, the crazy "stderr is for losers" rubbish).

    I bet a lot the the "Fuck Lennart" stuff is trolls too.

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  59. Re:dafuq? by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

    It clearly is about systemd. Here's another hint: what is libsystemd about? That's right: systemd.

    No. libsystemd0 is about interfacing to systemd if systemd is pid 1. If systemd is not pid 1 then libsystemd0 is a no-op.

    Luke has put himself to a lot of hard work to remove a no-op.

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  60. Re:So is SystemD or the old ways moar secure then? by gweihir · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Systemd is decidedly far less secure against a competent attacker. It has its fingers in so many places, local privilege elevation will be easy. It has network connectivity, which is about the most stupid thing security-wise you can do for an init-system. It has excessive feature-creep, and that means it is in active development all the time, with new vulnerabilities added constantly.

    You are right, SYSV-init does not actually have any real security problems, and that is due to its simplicity and age.

    My personal take at this time is that this is possibly intentional. Linux may have gotten to hard to break into for the surveillance-creeps and systemd may be an attempt to fix that. Sure, it will take a few months, or maybe even years for the catastrophe to become obvious.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  61. Re:The actual discussion is Desktop vs Server by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

    Here's a little hint.

    If you don't want systemd on your Debian servers then install sysvinit.

    # apt-get install sysvinit-core systemd-shim systemd-sysv-

    That was hard, wasn't it?

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  62. The only similarity by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1
    Between this and Microsoft is that Linux users have a lot of choice.

    Distrowatch keeps tabs and gives links to almost 300 distros. If you still can't find something you like, you can build your own Linux with only what you want, and nothing else.Rolling your own is surprisingly not all that difficult.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    1. Re:The only similarity by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

      Non-sense. Most of those distros are based on other distros that use systemd by default.

      Furthermore, even Patrick Volkerding has admitted that systemd may become inevitable even for Slackware.

    2. Re:The only similarity by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Non-sense. Most of those distros are based on other distros that use systemd by default.

      Furthermore, even Patrick Volkerding has admitted that systemd may become inevitable even for Slackware.

      You do understand the differnece between "most" and "all"?

      And if the systemd haters are correct, and systemd causes the entire Linux world ort crash and burn, those distros that do not have systemd will be the suurvivors of the Linocalypse.

      Written tongue in cheek, of course. But the basic principle holds. FreeBSD is apparently the future of Linux according to those in the know. So why they aren't all bringing up FreeBSD systems, but are in here bitching about systemd - the demon spawn of Linux - I have no idea. Probably related to the compulsion to tell teenagers to get off one's lawn.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  63. Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So... you're seriously saying that system's *optional*, pure-C dhcp client is somehow less secure than ISC dhcpc, which relies on *shell scripts* to actually do anything to the running system -- and has been the subject of numerous vulnerabilities to date?

    You are right, sysv-init does not have any real security problems, because it doesn't actually do anything. sysv-init, it relies on a hodpodge of other utilities and shell scripts nested like Russian dolls, and those are *still* turning up problems, with more being introduced all the time as new features and requirements are shoehorned into the bloated, creaking mess.

    I swear.. you're objecting to a system that *might* have vulnerabilities, and advocating in favor of sticking with one that has had many, and whose very design (or lack thereof) virtually guarantees there will always be more to be found.

    Every single technical objection I've seen to systemd (even the valid ones based on facts, not conjecture) apply even more so to what systemd is trying to replace.

    1. Re:Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Its being optional has nothing to do with its security. Being written in C is far worse than being a collection of shell-scripts for obvious historical reasons.

      What the hell have you been injecting directly into your eyeballs, sir?

  64. Re:The Unix beard is strong with this one by geminidomino · · Score: 1

    And people wonder why we're moving to FreeBSD instead of making our "reasoned arguments" to get systemd's flaws fixed...

  65. Re: Conspiracy-theorist? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Systemd does not mess with the firewall.

    Sure, people are working on that,

    Systemd does not mess with the firewall... yet

    Look, this is another one of those cases where how something is done and who does it are just important. In theory, we should have all that stuff unified somehow. In practice, this is not the person to do it. Also, this is probably not the way to do it. More message passing, less taking over everything. Enhancement of existing projects, not replacement of them with hastily-developed and poorly thought out replacements. That's a step backwards.

    I'm not even in theory against adopting systemd one day, when it's mature. If that ever happens. It's not time to implement it everywhere. The right place for it to be right now is Fedora, which is where Red Hat tests new stuff before it goes into RHEL. It doesn't belong anywhere else yet, save for other Fedora-based distributions. Why you'd want to be Fedora-based when you could be CentOS-based I have no idea, but I guess that's a separate rant.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  66. I'd install EMACS by arfonrg · · Score: 1

    "If I wanted one program to perform every single imaginable task on my computer, I'd install EMACS" - FIFY

    --
    Your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
  67. Re:So....explain to me... by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    That is like saying "don't like OOXML use something else."

    The dominate players have a lot of influence. Red Hat is connecting everything to systemd. Why is udev now part of systemd? Why does Gnome3 require systemd?

    What is going to be next? Once Debian goes systemd, Red Hat will have much more control over everything in Linux.

  68. Re:And after this war by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    I expect Debian to gone completely.

    Soon enough, Red Hat will decide that Linux should be standardized on one package management system. Systemd will only work with RPM.

    Red Hat will say this was done because of user demand, and that only luddite grey beards are complaining. Red Hat will say that Linux package management was broken, because of two many choices, and this had to be done.

    When this happens, there will not be much unique about Debian, so who needs it?

  69. Re:The actual discussion is Desktop vs Server by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    If that actually works at all, it won't for long.

    Once Debian switches over to systemd, Red Hat will have total control. And Red Hat is determined to have systemd everywhere, and to have everything dependent on systemd.

    Enjoy those little tricks while they last, they won't last long.

  70. Re:Scared admins by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    You must not know many admins.

    Every admin I have ever known, including myself, must adjust to constant change, it's part of the job.

    Systemd is not just a change. Systemd is an obvious embrace-extend-extinguish strategy. Systemd is all about Red Hat monopolizing Linux, and forcing vendor lock-in on Linux users.

  71. Citation needed by buchanmilne · · Score: 1

    The introduction of systemd has unilaterally created a polarization of the GNU/Linux community

    Citation needed. It seems to me the polarization has been created in the Debian community by the anti-systemd crowd. Instead of fixing the problems that resulted in systemd acquiring more of the Linux user-space functionality, or work actively towards supporting multiple init systems, they continually claim that there are divisions in the community created by the systemd developers.

    This doesn't seem to be an issue in other distributions.

  72. mail redhat by anonieuweling · · Score: 1

    Redhat employs Lennart. Just email them to complain. Also mail the people of your $distro to reconsider.

  73. For servers, FreeBSD is awesome by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    I have been testing FreeBSD lately. For servers, FreeBSD is awesome, beats systemd-linux up and down.

    For desktops, sadly, FreeBSD seems to have hardware compatibility issues. They tend to be smaller issues, but annoying none-the-less.

  74. Re: Conspiracy-theorist? by RavenLrD20k · · Score: 1

    What is so hard to lock down?
    HTTPd: Only run it on 80 or 443 on the system.
    FTPd: only use port 21.
    SSHd: only use port 22.
    SMTPd: Only use port 25.
    BIND: Only use port 53.
    Close off every other port on the server that you don't need. If the ISP blocks the above ports, use port forwarding on the router to get around it and leave your daemons running on the standard port. There's still a good majority of us that use Linux for servers. These are the people who do not need or want systemd. These are also the people that the big distros are not listening to and making systemd a one size fits all. Keeping systemd on a desktop distro is fine by me. Keep it off my servers.

  75. Re:The actual discussion is Desktop vs Server by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

    Why? What will stop it working?

    "Once Debian switches over to systemd" -- It already has for Jessie, and that command does work in Jessie.

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
  76. I hate caravans by Phil+Hands · · Score: 1

    ... so I took a blow-torch to my car to remove the hardpoint to which one can attach a towing hook.

    Clearly the presence of the hardpoint is all part of the caravan club's conspiracy.

    Having removed the hardpoint I can rest easy that I won't find myself suddenly towing a caravan.

    OK, so the structural integrity of the chasis is somewhat compromised, and I'll probably end up losing control of the vehicle at some point as a result of that, but the risk is totally worth it to avoid the risk of caravan infection.

    I really don't know what the designers were thinking. How could they inflict this creeping caravanism on me by making the structure at the back of my car confom to caravan-club standards?

    =-=-=-

    As for libsystemd0, for a sane view read:
      https://lists.debian.org/debia...

    --

    Debian: GNU/Linux done the Linux way
  77. The problem with systemd... by wertigon · · Score: 1

    systemd is not just an init system. systemd is a GNU replacement. Run systemd/Linux or GNU/Linux, but don't pretend that the two operating systems are one and the same. They are not.

    --
    systemd is not an init system. It's a GNU replacement.
  78. Re:Do people who post on lkml actually know englis by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 1

    No, you cannot 'unilaterally' create a condition between two groups of people. You can DO something unilaterally, "The introduction of systemd has unilaterally created a polarization..." is a misuse of the word. The EFFECT of what systemd did was a polarization, in which BOTH PARTIES moved further away from one another "towards opposite extremes." Polarization cannot, definitionaly, be unilateral. Its crappy writing. I suppose complaining about crappy writing on /. is like complaining about the smell of sewage on a particular day, but so be it.

    --
    "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
  79. And in-kernel JPEG, too ?! by DrYak · · Score: 1

    Because that's exactly where it should be. {...} Stupid, but initially the whole whole rationale behind PulseAudio according to Poettering was to make mixing work and no software mixing code would be accepted in the kernel, which is odd, because no one had ever tried.

    Hey, while you're at it, why not including also a JPEG decompression in kernel? That's useful for Webcams! And throw H264 while you're at it! That's gonna be great! except... not.

    Such a hackish idea was actually done with some newer USB webcam drivers in V4L. Once resolution increased to 640x480 and above, USB webcam, in order to circumvent the limited bandwitdh on USB 1x, started compressing frame as JPEG in hardware and streaming the compressed stream to the PC.
    Back then, the only way to get useful output out of V4L (designed to provide raw images like on older cams) was to embed a whole fricking JPEG decompressor inside the kernel driver (that's what the spca5xx driver did back then).
    The thing wasn't the most stable thing ever. The jpeg decompressor wasn't very resilient and fault tolerant. If USB transmission got corrupted, the decompressor could barf. That barfing happenned while in kernel space.

    Luckily, V4L2 was later introduced, which also handle compressed stream, and nowadays all the peculiarities are hidden behind a user-land framework like gstreamer (which handles the dirty low-level interraction behind the scene. Including compressed streams, including non-USB webcams like firewire, etc.)

    Same goes for sound:
    mixing is a rather high-level task which should be kept out of the kernel into a separate userland daemon, because that's the sane solution.

    You DON'T try implementing rsync in kernel space. Only block devies and filesystem. Higher level stuff goes into userland software.
    You ONLY implement in-kernel webserver as a proof of concept or for some corner cases. Apache and the like remain separate stacks.

    Thus:
    You keep video decompression and sound mixing out of the kernel too.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  80. Re: Conspiracy-theorist? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    Why you'd want to be Fedora-based when you could be CentOS-based I have no idea,

    Um, I don't think this is hard to understand. CentOS is just a rebranded version of RHEL. RHEL is basically like Debian Stable: it's slower and more conservative. Fedora, as you just said, is where Red Hat tests new stuff before putting it into RHEL (much like Debian Testing or Debian Unstable). So if you want your distro to be a little more cutting-edge, you'd base it on Fedora, not on CentOS. If you want your distro to be more conservative, you'd base it on CentOS, not Fedora.

  81. Re:Choice is good.Backup is better. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

    You don't even need a test computer, all you need is another laptop hard drive. Laptop HDs are usually brain-dead-easy to replace, usually just with one or two screws. On my Dell Latitude, there's two little screws holding it in, plus a plastic bezel part that screws to one side (and replacements are available for a few dollars on Ebay). It's simple: just pop out the regular HD, and put in your testing HD, and use that for your experiments while your critical data sits safely in a drawer.

    Of course, not having any kind of backups is still pretty stupid. At the least, just get a portable USB hard drive and back up to it periodically using rsync.

  82. Re: Conspiracy-theorist? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Um, I don't think this is hard to understand. CentOS is just a rebranded version of RHEL.

    It's slightly more than that, but yes, that's the idea.

    So if you want your distro to be a little more cutting-edge, you'd base it on Fedora, not on CentOS. If you want your distro to be more conservative, you'd base it on CentOS, not Fedora.

    If you want your distribution to be on the bleeding edge, etc etc. CentOS may be stodgy, but at least it's a stable base. I don't care for rpm, so I use Debian anyway. And so far, Ubuntu, but I'm planning to change that up here in a bit when I just decide which way to jump. Maybe gentoo since I have all these amd64 hosts now.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  83. BeOS into PalmOS by DrYak · · Score: 1

    BeOS. Well I say major in terms of technical achievement, not market share sadly.

    BeOS was able to play an MP3 while browsing the web and chatting on IRC and still burn a CD without making a coaster

    Which was, by the way, the motivation for Palm buying BeOS: for their technology, to use it as a way - for exemple - to play MP3 in the background of very low-power machines that were not even designed for multitasking.
    And thus some of the multimedia component made it into PalmOS 5.x

    Saddly, Palm themselve didn't manage to stay successful.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
    1. Re:BeOS into PalmOS by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      And of course there were attempts to recreate it as FOSS afterwards (projects like AtheOS) but they never took off - I suspect, in a large part, it was just too little too late.

      That and BeOS's single biggest shortcoming of course, a terrible shortage of drivers.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *