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.
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.
I am not especially well versed in the systemd vs sysinit issues. However, it is my understanding from reading other posts and articles on the issue is that those who are complaining about systemd are concerned unhappy with the non-linuxy way systemd approaches system process management.
What I mean by that, is traditionally the Linux "Philosophy" regarding the OS system and tools is that it should be made up of a collection of small stand alone software pieces that each do one small job and do it well. One system for initializing processes on bootup. One for scheduling jobs after boot-up. One for maintaining logs, ecetera. It is also my understanding that SystemD is taking the approach of wrapping up quite a number of those software pieces into one tool/process. The SystemD promoters believe the integration will make it the management of processes more efficient and cohesive. Those opposed believe it will make a monolithic process manager that in the long run will take more effort to maintain and offer less flexibility.
That is my understanding looking in from the outside.
The init system handles the initial startup of a linux os. It's been acknowledged for some time that it has some limitations, especially in terms of threading and dependency management but for the server world that's usually not that big a deal since the primary users are technical specialists who are comfortable mucking around with that sort of thing. For desktops and mobile devices though those are more serious concerns because they impact user experience and many users don't have the skills to modify things themselves. Systemd is a replacement for init.
PROS: It has faster boot time and more sophisticated dependency management
CONS: It's new (which means lots of people who understand the current system will have to relearn how things work), it's harder to directly customize (requires a higher level of skill to modify), it's a more monolithic design (which violates the linux design principle of do one thing and do it well), it uses binary log files (which violates the linux principle of everything is a text file) and it's taken on a larger number of roles than many feel is appropriate for a single subsystem.
In short, it's probably an improvement for desktop & mobile users who mostly don't care and it's a pretty big inconvenience and possible downgrade for systems administrators who manage servers.
Ubuntu 15.04 is not a LTS release, it's a testbed for features looking to be included on the upcoming Ubuntu 16.04 LTS.
It is not recommended for production systems. If you want the latest stable version, use Ubuntu 14.04.2.
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.
what exactly is systemd and why do we keep hearing so much about it?
Part of the problem is that its poorly defined. It's touted as a replacement for the init system. (The system that manages other services. So for a windows user it's core functions as the services host process -- its where you can start and stop services, determine which startup at system startup. Stop them. See which are running. Restart crashed services, etc. It does startup in parallel so it's faster than the traditional init system.
But doesn't just replace init, it relplaces cron (the task scheduling system -- "scheduled backups and such" not "cpu thread scheduling"; it replaces the event logging system, it replaces the login system...
The unix philospophy is for components to be small and do one thing well and to to let users build a system out of the different pieces they want. systemd is big and tightly integrated and more of an all-or-nothing and that rubs a lot of people the wrong way.
And the main valid criticisms of are (IMHO)
1) Binary logging -- the advantages of the systemd logging system are apparent, but there are disadvantages too; users should have
2) It potentially creates a layer between kernel and the rest of the system that becomes entrenched and irreplaceable. As applications going forward will develop dependencies on the rich services of systemd it will become impossible to replace systemd with anything else, except maybe a fork of systemd. (This rubs a lot of people the wrong way.)
3) the rich service layer and tight integration stifles innovation; for example assuming systemd has traction someone can't make a "better cron" now, because that functionality is part of systemd. They can't make a better init-only system because applications will be relying on all the other services of systemd.
4) it gets between the rest of the system and the kernel, and in many cases you have to work through systemd and can't just go to the kernel. This has its good points, but also its problems and further entrenches systemd.
Perhaps GNU/Linux systems with systemd should properly be called GNU/systemd/Linux systems to emphasize the point.
I don't personally hate systemd; I recognize a lot of thing it does are good for large parts of the linux user base. But I do agree with the 'haters'; that its not modular enough and that leads to several valid complaints.
I doesn't help that the egos involved on all sides are large and uncompromising.
Kinda sorta. You missed the fact that init itself is also a process manager. In that it's responsible for starting and stopping processes based on runlevels. (Yes, init can start and stop processes on runlevels)
There's a nasty hack called SysVInit that adds a bunch of shell scripts to init in order to try to replicate the functionality of init. This is done because instead of fixing init's fundamental flaw, people decided to hack a workaround and create a lamer version of a process manager and its hacks. The flaw? Init relies on /etc/inittab for all its process management information needs. One file makes it extremely non-trivial to add and remove services from it programmatically.
It's why we have to deal with daemons that monitor other daemons that restart daemons should they quit (something init does quite well - even handling cases where a daemon restarts too quickly by pausing it so it doesn't hog system resources).
And on another note, we have userspace versions of init that manage user processes on login. The desktop/mobile use cases often have per-user applications that startup and run in the background for the user, and need to be managed on a per-user basis.
So in the end, we end up with the system master process manager, init, a set of hacks and shell scripts to try to emulate it (SysVInit), and one for individual users who wish to have personal services run. Because it's more unix-y to hack three different tools that do almost the same thing, but each with their own limitations and idiosyncrasies rather than one tool to do the job well.
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
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. . . .
I cannot believe that two known incompetent hacks with bad personalities can screw over a whole large tech-savvy community all by themselves.
I don't think it's that bad, they don't have to convince the entire 'tech-savvy community,' they only need to convince a very small subset of that community, the people who are writing init scripts for distros. And that subset is very small.
Systemd knows that very well. They've worked very hard to make init-script writers happy, and have been very responsive in making changes. If you look through the Debian mailing lists, you can see this......there's no need to blame the NSA or others. They're just following a useful principle: find the ones who have power to do what you want, then make them as happy as possible. The systemd people have done that.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Systemd has laudable goals and people do want it. That's why it's been adopted, because some people want what it does. "It fills a use case people have" is what Linus says. And that use case happens to be the one that desired by the people responsible for building distros.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."