Slashdot Mirror
Ubuntu To Officially Switch To systemd Next Monday
jones_supa writes: Ubuntu is going live with systemd, reports Martin Pitt in the ubuntu-devel-announce mailing list. Next Monday, Vivid (15.04) will be switched to boot with systemd instead of UpStart. The change concerns desktop, server, and all other current flavors. Technically, this will flip around the preferred dependency of init to systemd-sysv | upstart in package management, which will affect new installs, but not upgrades. Upgrades will be switched by adding systemd-sysv to ubuntu-standard's dependencies. If you want, you can manually do the change already, but it's advisable to do an one-time boot first. Right now it is important that if you run into any trouble, file a proper bug report in Launchpad (ubuntu-bug systemd). If after some weeks it is found that there are too many or too big regressions, Ubuntu can still revert back to UpStart.
Now time for me to switch to Windows!
It still doesn't have a decent architecture for scheme plugins and a robust text editor.
Enjoy
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
The bug is systemd.
Can someone explain to us Windows and OS X users, without using acronyms and Linux-only mumbo-jumbo, what exactly is systemd and why do we keep hearing so much about it?
Telling us to go read a wikipedia page probably won't help because it will be either too long to read, too complex or require knowledge about other topics to understand.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
What was wrong with Event Horizon?
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
I never really understood either side, far above my head. But I have used Ubuntu a few times and followed their major changes over the last decade. If there is one thing I do understand is that if Ubuntu is switching to it it must be a trendy piece of crap, far from ready for prime time.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
I just installed Linux Mint 17.1 Cinnamon (Rebecca release) on the machine I'm typing from this week. While it does have some things I don't like (some weird config location choices, /var/run, /etc/bash.bashrc, bash_completiond,WTF is up with dnsmasq?, some weird sound behavior, semi-broken bash tab completion, won't mount my cellphone no matter what, etc - aka issues I've never had with CentOS).
I also still have 2 several years old but up to date CentOS boxes I use every day and prefer them but I picked Mint because it's supposed to be better for day to day regular desktop use, has far more up to date packages, and I was tired of fighting dependency hell with extra packages from 2008 (my own fault, admittedly) for things like VLC.
My understanding, and I can't find where I read it before I went and downloaded/installed it, is that Mint is in wait-and-see mode and will be waiting until their next LTS release in a few years and then re-evaluating whether to switch to systemd. Looking at the system I have installed right now, it looks like there are a few pieces installed for compatibility (although none of them are running) but the init system is still old school init.d and runlevels.
I haven't looked at systemd in depth but my gut feeling is it throws away the UNIX mindset of, do one thing and do it well, output/input everything in text in favor of aping Apple (paritcularly)/Microsoft and the politics behind it seem dirty. I have watched a few Poettering videos and he comes off as a massively arrogant douche bag (but I am a fan of Linus and RMS so *shrug*).
$.02
This systemd mess has me floating now
Yeah, that was me for awhile. Systemd has it's problems but over all I've not seen any real issues with it that didn't just simply involve me learning a new way of doing something. I've been using fedora, now 21, on my desktop at work for 2 years now. I've not really seen any issues at all with the it doing its job. Infact fedora 21 has been the best workstation OS I've used.
I was against systemd for a while, I'm still kind of iffy on some of the issues it has. I don't like binary logfile over ascii log file. I've stated my reasons for that before.
Over all systemd is a new way of doing things, and I think that is a lot of the resistance to it. Init is 20 years old, might be time to try something new.
Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
Linux has become an utterly chaotic mess that isn't fun anymore because most of my time is spent relearning the bullshit that comes with software designed by consensus
Actually Linux always was an utterly chaotic mess and that's precisely what made it so fun. It's the waves of Windows envy followed by waves of Mac envy which have sucked the fun out of it.
Still it's all relative and I'd rather use Linux than one of the more commercial offerings by a very long way.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I won't use systemd until it is themeable, or at least skinnable.
Also, where are all the good screenshots showing cool systemd setups?
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
The SystemD crowd are windows devs who hate 8 so much, they finally decided to get into linux. Sadly, they want linux to work like windows, so they foist their shit into it. It does make boot times faster: something sysadmins usually don't give a shit about since you don't reboot servers. Red Hat wants systemD because it will let them abstract linux (the kernel) away to the point where they can control it instead of "the community". In addition, several genuinely nice tools, UUID for disks, are being folded into SystemD so, in order to get those tools, you *must* also use SystemD. Essentially it's being bundle in with other services.
Sadly, SystemD is not well tested enough for most people running linux on a server to trust it especially since the guy who wrote it wrote PulseAudio and people are still having issues related to that piece of shit.
Pros:
* Boots fast
Cons:
* When it breaks, you're fucked
* Obsoletes 20-30 years of accepted best practices and knowledge of how to use linux tools
* No real new features
* Is network connected and running as superuser
* Is unaudited
* Is virtually untested
* Was written by a raging moron
* Is completely unneeded by a large section of people who have run linux for a long time
Essentially, it's the Windows 8 of the *nix world
Er...not Archlinux... ( cached page as the original seems to be down )
In fact, Arch adopted it pretty early on. Its Slackware, Crux, or Gentoo these days, unless you head on over to BSD land...
Ubuntu is geared more toward people who don't care much about managing the boot details. So I think it might make sense for them. I chose my distro based on how much control it gave me. And luckily, they still seem committed to OpenRC. When it comes to booting, keep it simple!
There are several main reason why systemd has overrun some of the best known distros. On of the biggest is simple. Gnome depends on it, and soon KDE will too. Distro maintainers either bend over for systemd, or will spend a lot of time patching and trying to get these two desktops working on GNU/Linux.
Then, you have two types of distro maintainers. Volunteers, and paid developers. Volunteers are guys like you and me, with limited time to help, doing things on spare time. Paid developers usually are RedHat or Canonical employees (we also had novell employees when they destroyed SuSE), and the first seem to be more and with more money to spend on pushing RedHat technologies. Unpaid volunteers can't even compete with the deluge of code and the sponsored conferences and presentations. Any alternative or dissenting voice is either bought or pressured to give up.
Finally, some claim that systemd solves a lot of things that didn't work, and that if you don't know what these are then you are an idiot, as obviously Linux has never worked well in the last 20 years.
But what do I know, I've been told enough times that I am heretic (hater in doubleplusgood newspeak) for daring to criticise systemd.
While trying something new can have merit, throwing away the old, reliable and perfectly usable alternative is not. And that is what systemd is trying to force people to do.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
The first half was a very good science-fiction movie ... The second half was a bad horror movie.
So, just like systemd then.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
The fact that you stayed into Unity shows that you're lying and going to continue to stay.
The fact that you haven't heard of lubuntu or xubuntu shows that you're an ignoranus who should shut his cakehole.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Systemd stores a lot of metadata in the journal, not just simple text rows. A custom format allows this to be queried very quickly.
If everyone hates systemd so much, why is it being incorporating into all these Linux distributions? Have all the major ones incorporated it? Does this "evil" Poettering guy really have that much clout in all the disparate distros?
The systemd haters are actually a tiny but vocal minority. They tend to flash-mob systemd threads, so you can often see here on slashdot, how a little handful of systemd-haters post 10-20 anti-systemd posts in anything remotely related to systemd. They seem like they are many, but when counting they are quite few.
No distro have lost users because of switching to systemd, in fact, systemd is part of the whole OS container wave that are fuelling the Linux engine at the moment. Not a single non-systemd commercial Linux distro have emerged since all the major Linux distro announced their shift to systemd, so the server market seems firmly behind systemd.
One reason why Canonical is changing to systemd as fast as it can, is because their OS container costumers are impatiently tapping their feet, waiting for systemd integration.
People have started to ignore this small, sometimes very toxic minority for quite some time, since the anti-systemd people are basically uninformed about any technical aspects of systemd, because they rely on hearsay and random hate blogs for their information about systemd instead of actually reading the systemd documentation.
Init is still good for many applications (and completely satisfactory for server use). If somebody tries to prevent me from using it or to make that hard, then these people become an enemy. The systemd crowd qualifies.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Simple: I am not against progress if it has merit. Systemd has none.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Oh yes. I am so sure that your test plans include such unlikely things as your customers deciding to run your app on a Pentium III with no SSE support. That's when you discover that the compiler settings are defaulted for SSE support. Or you discover that a shared memory file is being used by an old software version and a new software version at the same time, resulting in disagreements about exactly what should be locked when. Or maybe you find out that if a customer opens more than 1024 file descriptors your app starts to get silent memory corruption and eventually crashes. (POSIX, select(), FD_SET with fds higher than FD_SETSIZE). Did you check every single POSIX resource limit before using the system libraries? Did you do it correctly?
You can have 100% test coverage and still fail in the real world because of issues with the hardware, libraries and operating system.
You surely must realize that the real world contains so many possible ways to break software that you can't possibly test them all. At some point you just have to go for it.
pre-systemd : systemd :: INI files : the Registry
I come here for the love
On Fedora systemd updates managed to break zfs startup so now I just login as root via the command line and mount the drives instead of second guessing which change will break it next time.
I have been using systemd since its inception, and it has been rock solid. It is better tested and documented than most other FOSS projects; a Jenkins back-end and Coverty scans, integrated self tests, and rather strict coding practise really helps too in that regard. Take fx. SysVinit; their developers doesn't even have build test framework, so the only way to test whether a new patch doesn't break everything, is to make a live boot. No wonder they haven't made a release for many years despite the patches are accumulating.
Claiming that it isn't ready yet is just plain wrong and just seems to be some sorry excuse for not bothering to learn something new.
No, systemd detractors really is a tiny minority; some ways this really shows is how there are almost no developers working to maintain even critical needed infra structure for non-systemd distros; ConsoleKit has been abandoned for years now, eudev is just a shadow fork of udev with no independent development going on, and several key components like systemd-shim and cgmanager are only kept alive by paid Canonical developers and a few Debian devs; once Ubuntu and Debian shifts to systemd, those projects will languish too. SysVinit will properly also deteriorate completely; Red Hat/Suse was the defacto upstream before, and now it is only Debian as long as it last. So the non-systemd infrastructure will probably deteriorate further as the commercial distros stops to maintain it.
In short, almost no developers are working on maintaining non-systemd infrastructure, this reflects how few the systemd-detractors really are.
The recent Debian debate also show how few the systemd detractors really are when the numbers are shown: The system-detractors made a lot of noise on the Debian mailing list, but after the technical committee had decided that systemd should be the new Debian Linux init system, the detractors were unable to even gather 5 (like in five) Debian developers out of around 1000 to sponsor a vote on this subject.
Even the GR bill trying to keep other init-systems equally supported was clobbered at the GR vote.
So going by the noise on the mailing lists, the systemd-detractors seemed like a force, but when voting they where nowhere to be seen.
Same with Linux distros; you would think that the non-systemd distro ranks would be swelling with the numbers of systemd-refugees. This certainly doesn't seem to be the case. A couple of rather obscure distros like Funtoo and Void are among the few distros that don't want to support systemd. Slackware is undecided on the issue, and Gentoo etc. support systemd, with a growing number of its users that prefer it to OpenRC.
Also no medium/major commercial non-systemd Linux distro have emerged this last couple of years, this is a strong indication that the paying costumers wants systemd, and doesn't care at all for the alleged superiority of SysVinit. Several companies made it clear during the Debian debate that they favoured systemd, none spoke for SysVinit or Upstart.
No wonder; systemd is great and it solves real world problems like daemon management and security much better than any other alternative.
anti-systemd attacks have no merit, they are just a list of vitriolic personal attacks on the developers and lies about what systemd does or can do.
If systemd had no merit, it would not be adopted by so many distros
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
And you know and trust this person and Red Hat management to not lie about it?
Given that they were heavily pushing Upstart at the time, yes.
To me this sounds like an all too convenient artificially created "legend" of the heroic single developer that changed the world. In other words, complete BS.
He has obviously not done it alone, just check the git commit log.