Slashdot Mirror


Linux Mint Will Continue To Provide Both Systemd and Upstart

jones_supa writes: After Debian adopted systemd, many other Linux distributions based on that operating system made the switch as well. Ubuntu has already rolled out systemd in 15.04, but Linux Mint is providing dual options for users. The Ubuntu transition was surprisingly painless, and no one really put up a fight, but the Linux Mint team chose the middle ground. The Mint developers consider that the project needs to still wait for systemd to become more stable and mature, before it will be the default and only option.

13 of 347 comments (clear)

  1. Re:The pain isn't in the switch by kthreadd · · Score: 3, Informative

    Sounds like Apache is forking and running as a daemon, and you haven't told systemd to expect that behaviour.

  2. Re:Are the "GNU" and "Linux" parts still needed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Take note modern shitposters. This is what a good troll looks like.

    If everyone who wants to derail a discussion would put in as much effort as this the Internet would be saved.

  3. I like how this got marked troll by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's a fact that the fix for corrupt logs, which systemd will often corrupt if you power-cycle your system, is to delete them and throw them away. https://lwn.net/Articles/621453/ https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2013-July/185702.html It's a fact that systemd will only sometimes recover any part of its bullshit binary logs, and only any part after any error. So if journald truncates a file because it shits itself, which it has been known to do, then you lose the whole log.

    Moderators, you might want to familiarize yourself with the festering pile of shit which is Lennart Poettering, as well as the pile of crap which is systemd, before you moderate any systemd discussions. Because you clearly have no idea what you're doing.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    1. Re:I like how this got marked troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Systemd is neither well-written nor does it do one single thing very well, well maybe corrupt your log files and crash very, very spectacularly..

      Systemd (the program) manages a dependency graph of "units" and triggers user-defined actions in the correct sequence when the system state changes.

      That's the single thing it does. It doesn't do logging at all - that's a separate service journald that is usually packaged with and started by systemd but is not part of the same daemon. udevd and logind are also separate services. Clearly if you lump a bunch of related daemons together and insist they are all one daemon called "systemd" then that straw-man is going to be confusing.

    2. Re:I like how this got marked troll by Peter+H.S. · · Score: 4, Informative

      The issue is not with systemd corrupting the binary logs, or with the filesystem corrupting the binary logs, but with the fact that they are -binary- logs. A log file should be an ordinary text file. Nothing more, nothing less.

      The glaring problems with flat file, unstructured text logs have been discussed for decades now. Plain text log files, like the original syslog(3) interface was simply bad ideas that Linux inherited. The main commercial selling point with any syslog implementation today is exactly that you can avoid several of these problems by using a DB.

      An overhaul of the creaking legacy Linux logging system have been needed for a decade at least. Remember, the Rsyslog project was started exactly to fix such problems. They failed partly because distros and developers don't care about working together for a common goal and because there was no other central developer hub who would take the initiative.

      systemd have finally fixed so many of the classic syslog problems. I don't care if you think syslog is perfect and never can be improved, and Rsyslog should be avoided for providing binary DB storing option, but please don't think that other people agree to this postulate.

      And systemd's journald is designed to be 100% backwards compatible with syslog, so if your setup have legacy need, it is trivial to get a systemd distro to use legacy syslog text logs.

  4. Re:The pain isn't in the switch by Junta · · Score: 3, Informative

    dconf uses binary configuration files. As I've said many times, while systemd catches a lot of flak for messing with long standing conventions, it is far from alone in modifying the experience (dbus, dconf, systemd, udev all do interesting things, each component bringing interesting capability with varying degrees of drawbacks).

    I think udev generally does a great job of delivering useful capability with minimal downside. Then dconf (most people don't even realize the binary dconf files exist, even when they poke dconf extensively). dbus starts going off the rails (many things that once were simple enough to explore/grep around for are now only possible through internet search of obscure dbus-send commands). systemd I actually consider less bad than having to do more and more dbus stuff.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
  5. The mint team is doing a right thing. by cryptogranny · · Score: 3, Informative

    The mint team is doing a right thing. I'm writing this from a CentOS 7 machine that I'm using to test systemd. One day, when the XFS partition was corrupted I realized that the system can't do usual self check and self repair. Why? Because systemd.fsck module runs fsck.xfs which according to the manual "simply exits with a zero exit status". You can boot with init=/bin/bash, but can't correct system scripts to change the behavior, everything is in binaries now.

  6. Re:The pain isn't in the switch by kthreadd · · Score: 3, Informative

    Ubuntu 14.04 uses Upstart.

  7. Re:Yeah mint! by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Informative

    The reason so many distros have adopted systemd is because it fills a need: it does something useful for them. This topic has been exposited. In the second link, note how much shorter the unit file is than the init script. That is why distro maintainers have adopted systemd, because they have to write less code.

    So Lennart found something people needed, and built it. That's why people adopted it. You don't have to like systemd, but you should at least understand why it's been adopted.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  8. Re:The pain isn't in the switch by squiggleslash · · Score: 5, Informative

    IIRC these "binary" logs you speak of are simply text files with indexing information attached. They're not encrypted or compressed, you can, at worst, use the "strings" command to pull the information, and if you're doing raw sector dumps from a hard drive then you'll be able to read them there too.

    Of course, if the log files are zero'd out, like the bug report you quote, then it doesn't matter whether they're "binary" or text, you're screwed. That has nothing to do with systemd.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  9. Re:Systemd detractors are like climate change deni by ookaze · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually, it seems quite the opposite. We have the systemd crowd claiming that it's simpler even when there is a whole new level of complexity in systemd they don't even know about (hint, look for the systemd craziness in /lib). Like the climate change deniers, they believe that since they haven't personally seen a problem in their simple and vanilla system that there isn't a problem at all.

    There is no "systemd crowd". There are systemd users that find it easier to use than previous solutions which have bugs which won't ever be fixed like Upstart.
    systemd is actually far less complex than using Upstart + countless tools and daemons with their configurations scattered all other the place.
    I don't see the crazyness you talk about in /lib/systemd or /usr/lib/systemd. I don't use every systemd utilities, but I caved in for a lot of them and threw away xinetd, my custom FS mount scripts, my custom network scripts...
    And my simple and vanilla systems, with their LVM on software RAID, FS on SAN and NAS, ... which were a pain to tune so that they bootup correctly every time, were a breeze to migrate to systemd. So yes I don't see a problem with my vanilla systems that even distributions didn't know how to setup 15 years ago, and some still can't today.

  10. Logs via network by bouldin · · Score: 4, Informative

    SysD's binary logs have another, serious flaw: they are not designed to be sent over a network. This has been an intrinsic part of syslog for a looong time.

    There are a few tools to send journald logs remotely, but they rely on tailing the binary log, then reformatting it and transmitting it over HTTPS to another tool on the destination system.

    I found a feature request for journald/sysd/whatever to enable network logging, and the solution they are adding is to... tail the binary logs with basically the same tools.

    Putting the disk in the middle and depending on file tailing is such a bad solution. Many things can cause this to fail; it's a total kludge.

    I discovered this when investigating how to send journald logs to Splunk. The solution there is to... tail the binary logs with journald to a text file and have Splunk monitor the text file.

    Now, this is not a fatal flaw. Journald could (I assume) be enhanced to natively send logs over a network. But, this shows that systemd is not enterprise-grade or production-grade, and was not designed with that kind of reliability in mind.

  11. Re:Lennart Poettering is cancer on the face of Lin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Oracle Linux is just rebranded Redhat. Oracle switched because Redhat switched (ditto CentOS and all the other Redhat-based distros), not because they saw any inherent superiority in systemd. (And guess who Poettering works for? Hint, their logo is a crimson fedora.)

    Sure, Oracle is big enough they could have forked it, but then it wouldn't be 100% Redhat compatible, and they'd have to hire developers to actually write code rather just have a script that globally replaces Redhat trademarks with Oracle trademarks. Both of which would cut into Larry Ellison's bottom line, so won't happen.