Slashdot Mirror


Lennart Poettering Announces the First Systemd Conference

jones_supa writes: Lennart Poettering, the creator of the controversial init system and service manager for Linux-based operating systems has announced the first systemd conference. The systemd.conf will take place November 5-7, in Berlin, Germany. systemd developers and hackers, DevOps professionals, and Linux distribution packagers will be able to attend various workshops, as well as to collaborate with their fellow developers and plan the future of the project. Attendees will also be able to participate in an extended hackfest event, as well as numerous presentations held by important names in the systemd project, including Poettering himself.

19 of 416 comments (clear)

  1. Startup management subsystem by QuietLagoon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If a startup management subsystem needs its own conference, it is doing too much.

    1. Re:Startup management subsystem by EmperorArthur · · Score: 4, Informative

      It does seem a bit much, but the systemd transition is a slow one. Many packages are still using init.d startup scripts, which means we can't take advantage of systemd's features with them.

      Systemd isn't really a startup management subsystem. It's a full blown service manager. It can be set, at the user's choice, to restart services when there's a problem. It can provide detailed logs from each service.

      The best part is the service descriptor files follow a standard. If all people did at this conference was convert package init scripts to systemd I would be ecstatic.

      --
      So lets pretend that we've just completed writing this code, as opposed to having just completed sabotaging it -Altera
    2. Re:Startup management subsystem by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Funny

      I tried to register for it, but the system said no tickets were available. I sent in a note about that and got a response saying that ticket availability wasn't in the plans and that I was stupid for wanting one.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    3. Re:Startup management subsystem by Barsteward · · Score: 4, Informative

      its the systemd project, not just the service management program "systemd" - from the announcement

      Call for Presentations We’d like to invite presentation proposals for systemd.conf 2015. We are looking for talks including, but not limited to the following topics: - Use Cases: systemd in today’s and tomorrow’s devices and applications, - systemd and containers, in the cloud and on servers, - systemd in distributions, - Embedded systemd, - systemd on the desktop, - Networking with systemd, - D-Bus and kdbus IPC systems, - and everything else related to systemd.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    4. Re:Startup management subsystem by Peter+H.S. · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You could refute that trivially by clearly stating what problem it actually solves. Yet you chose not to do that.

      systemd solves many old Linux problems; besides the technical ones like proper service management, it also solves the problem with fossilized development of subsystems like init and logging, and solves the old problem of lack of coordination between userland, kernel space, and the plumbing layer between.

      systemd, as init and process manager, actually takes on the coordination responsibility that lacked previously. It is way cool how "namespace" isolation and kernel Capabilities(7) are integrated so system admins can turn on such security features just by adding a Boolean value in a text file. It also means that every iteration of systemd distros become ever more hardened per default, making ever more difficult for the the black hats to gain privilege escalation.

      By dismissing every systemd feature and everything systemd does as "bad", systemd-opponents like you paint yourself and all your fellow travelers into an ever smaller corner, where "SysVinit/OpenRC" is the pinnacle of evolution without ever needing more features.

      Good luck with that.

    5. Re:Startup management subsystem by Peter+H.S. · · Score: 4, Informative

      it also solves the problem with fossilized development of subsystems like init and logging,

      Not a problem, and also not actually a thing. Several competing init systems which didn't bring baggage with them already existed, but Lennart is a real NIH kind of guy so he didn't start with one of those. Stable init and log daemons are features, not bugs.

      Yes, it is a "thing". The problem with the fossilization of the Linux plumbing layer meant that crucial progress was being held back. All the init-systems in use at the time where just "slightly improved SysVinit" style init-systems. They all relied on executable config scripts to manage daemons, and none of them tried to step up an take proper responsibility for the boot and init process.
      Upstart was a nice pioneering effort, but not a good solution as it were. But there are still other problems; crond fx. Why can't it handle hibernation properly? Probably because it was made when Unix servers where hand grafted out of shell scripts an always on. But there is no "cron" upstream developer group that takes RFE's, and no coordination between the many fragmented crond forks and userland developers, making all new development practically impossible. It would have been freaking nice if crond could have been dragged into the modern world 10-15 years ago, but as of now, we have to use crond+at+whatever instead.

      systemd, as init and process manager, actually takes on the coordination responsibility that lacked previously. It is way cool how "namespace" isolation and kernel Capabilities(7) are integrated

      You do realize that cgroups is a thing you diddle with very small commandline programs, right?

      You are probably thinking of the old cgroups interface, but that is being deprecated in the near future in favor of the "single writer"/"unified hierarchy" that requires a writer that abstract away the kernel cgroup API so userland doesn't use it directly.
      http://www.linuxfoundation.org...

      The point is that system already comes with such an abstraction layer for capabilities, namespaces and cgroups, making it trivially easy for the admin to harness their power without coding, by simply setting the value "ProtectSystem=true" in the service file, or using similar features (see man systemd.exec). Better yet, distro maintainers can lock down the daemon per default, giving "out-of-the-box" security.

      There is nothing else that even comes close to the power of systemd when it comes to such security integration. The systemd security framework for these kernel technologies are not only easy for humans to read and understand, but it is machine parsable and scalable too.

      To my knowledge nobody in the non-systemd camp is even working on similar ideas, or even on an alternative cgroups single writer implementation.


        Not tying it to a specific log daemon is the really important part, though!

      Which is _exactly_ what journald _doesn't_! You can use it together with any "syslog(3)" daemon. So if you have a legacy setup, you can use with journald and it will even enhance it by providing logging info syslog normally can't get.

    6. Re:Startup management subsystem by DrJimbo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'd rather have a system that does it better without having to resort to scripts all over the place to make up for deficiencies in the system.

      You seem to be making the tacit assumption that everything works perfectly. If I am debugging a system then I would much prefer to deal with scripts (usually all in one place or otherwise easily found) than have to try to debug C and C++ code and XML schema. See Theodore Ts'o comments that were linked to above.

      It reminds of me dealing with Microsoft systems (many years ago from the NT days, maybe they have changed since then). *IF* everything works pefectly then it is fine but as soon as you are in the mode of tracking down problems then it becomes a nightmare. This is why I made the switch from Windows-NT to Linux when I was doing sysadmin at a university. If I wanted to use a system that was like that then I would use Windows. This tacit assumption that the system was designed perfectly so there is no need for any intervention is one of the reason people don't want to give up init scripts on their Linux systems and replace them with systemd.

      --
      We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
      -- Anais Nin
  2. We are systemd by ArcadeMan · · Score: 4, Funny

    We are systemd. Lower your MBR protection and surrender your init system. We will add your daemons, libraries, and utilities to our own. Your code will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.

  3. Re: Piss off systemd by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ah, but with every single major distro adopting it, you better quit crying and get used to it, buddy!

    They changed to systemd, they can change away just as well. Oh sure, the systemd cancer has spread to many daemons, but it can be excised from them as well. (Ironically, the daemons need exorcism...)

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  4. Re:Free speech zone by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They will not invite someone to speak on that, but that is something I'm working on.

    In brief, the good:
    * Systemd makes it easier for distro maintainers to write startup scripts, which is something a lot of them wanted.

    The bad:
    * Poor understanding of interfaces by the lead developers.
    * Poor understanding of portability by the lead developers.
    * Poor understanding of separation of concerns.
    * Scope creep (there is no reason Gnome should depend on systemd).
    * Binary files are a symptom of idiocy......more specifically, binary/text is not something that should be decided by the init system.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  5. Re:Free speech zone by Peter+H.S. · · Score: 4, Insightful

    >* Scope creep (there is no reason Gnome should depend on systemd).

    Gnome doesn't depend on systemd as such, but on the systemd-logind API. Until recently (perhaps it still does) it also supported the old ConsolKit API as alternative even though CK had been dead for +1½ year with no upstream bug fixing or security support, and no one bothered to maintain it anyway.

    The problem seems to be that the systemd-opponents really don't understand how Open Source software works and being developed, something that requires coordination, and positive contributions with either code, documentation, or money.

    Claiming that the systemd developers are incompetent and doesn't understand software development will get you nowhere. You have to employ your superior knowledge into actual competing projects in order to be taken seriously. But that is the problem isn't it? The total lack of effort by the systemd-opponents to actually create something useful.

  6. Re:Piss off systemd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Systemd conference -- you're going whether you want to or not.

  7. Re: Piss off systemd by Microlith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah, it'll be so terrible because... because...

    Can you explain why this is a bad thing? Or is this another purely emotional "I don't like it!" tantrum?

  8. Re:Piss off systemd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually, Debian should have been forked to include systemd, not forked to exclude it!

    That's the whole point of forking. You fork, do experimental stuff like integrate systemd in this fork, and then throw the fork away when it becomes clear that the idea was a dumb one.

    When done sensibly like that, the source is left unaffected by experimentation that proves to be disastrous.

    Debian users could have continued to use a stable, sane, reliable, trustworthy system, like they've been accustomed to for a couple of decades now.

    Those who want newfangled and unproven doodads and curiosities could have used the systemd fork of Debian. When they got bored, or suffered from one failure after another, they could always limp back to Debian.

  9. systemd is my fault by Earthquake+Retrofit · · Score: 4, Funny
    I may be somewhat more susceptible to guilt than most. Something happened to me a few years ago at the Z-80 Lounge in San Francisco. It was a day before my birthday. This guy I had never seen before sat down next to me and told me he needed my help. 'Okay' I said. If I had something else to do I wouldn't have been there in the first place.

    'I need you to prevent something horrible from happening in the future, Steve.' He then nodded at the TV. There was a game on and along the bottom of the screen was a stock ticker. After reading from his tablet for a moment he said, 'Jackson is gonna score on a third-down pass in a minute.'

    We watched three plays and sure enough, he was right. He proceeded to call the next series exactly. 'Nice trick.' I said, 'But this broadcast must be delayed.'

    'That stock ticker isn't though, is it? Check your timepiece. The market closes in ten minutes.' He then showed me the closing price for both exchanges and bought me another stout.

    It must have been a wild day on Wall Street because prices were feverishly swinging up and down. But he got the final numbers, right down to the penny. 'I'm from the future.' he said.

    Now you hear all sorts of crazy talk at the Z-80 Lounge. And San Francisco IS the golden cultural capital in the hearts of hippie hackers everywhere. So I figured he hacked my tablet. "You have to stop it. It's called system..." But just then, a big hand clamped over his mouth and two big guys in suits grabbed him and dragged him out so I never knew until now what he was talking about.

    Sorry.

    --
    Fifty years of Yippie! 1968-2018
  10. Re:systemd is the best init system for FreeBSD. by JSG · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "(sorry, Slackware, you're a relic; Gentoo, you're impractical)"

    Sorry AC , you don't get it: It doesn't matter whether 1 or 1 billion people use a distro, they are exercising their choice - their ability to choose what they want. That is the most powerful aspect of free software whether it be Gentoo, Slack, Yggdrasil (my first), *BSD or whatever.

    YOU GET A FUCKING CHOICE OF WHAT OS TO PUT ON YOUR COMPUTER.

    Your insinuation that FreeBSD will somehow slide into the breech to replace Linux is almost as laughable as this being the year of Linux on the Desktop.

    BTW I use Gentoo quite a lot (50 odd systems) and they all have pid 1 == systemd ...

    Cheers
    Jon

  11. Re:Ah, Berlin by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I really don't get the fetish for text file configuration that Linux has.

    Text is attractive because it's a least-common-denominator and *universal* format. However inconvenient it may be to parse and organize, you can write a reasonably simple script to do it, and you can pipe it through just about any command to transform or process it in whatever way you want. With text, you never have to worry about a black box of a file, because it's always human-readable, and thus more amenable to hacking.

    The downside for log files is that text-based formats are incredibly inefficient as backing stores for any substantial amount of data. And as a configuration format, it's incredibly difficult to write front-end configuration software for scripts, although less so with regular formats like json or xml. Once the configuration is in a script, automated management of that configuration pretty much goes out the window - you're essentially committed to maintaining scripts by hand. This is not a problem for system administrators or advanced users, but horrible for normal users and GUI systems.

    There are legitimate points on both sides, and which side you come down on may depend on your primary use case.

    --
    Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  12. Re:Free speech zone by Peter+H.S. · · Score: 4, Informative

    ok, so now I'm interested. You are clearly a strong proponent of systemd (some might even say 'fanboy'). What is it about systemd that you like so much? What are the features that really help you? What inspires your advocacy?

    Not really a fan boy. Actually I don't care at all what other people use as init-system. I am cool with Slackware going their own way, and I respect P. Volkerding's Linux vision, even though it isn't the same as mine.

    The main reasons why I am going into the systemd debate was that I frankly was tired of all the stupid misinformation spread about it. Some of it deliberate lies, but most often it is misinformation copied from some swivel-eyed loony and then repeated again and again until people take it as truth.

    My favorite example on this was the often repeated claim that Gnome had "hard dependencies on systemd" and these where "pushed/forced" into Gnome by Poettering. Just because Gnome support systemd for session management, doesn't mean it can't support an alternative too.

    And in fact, Gnome did exactly that, despite that ConsolKit was dead and unsupported upstreams, they still supported it years afterwards, while pleading on various blogs and mailing lists (including Debian's) that some should either maintain CK or make an alternative. Nobody did that and the non-systemd camp can only blame themselves for that.

    Perhaps one of the reasons why nobody started to make an alternative could be that so many people claimed that Gnome had hard dependencies on systemd, making it look like Gnome only cared for systemd support, so why bother. A self fulfilling prophecy.

    I have been a Linux user since Slackware came on 40 floppies. I like Linux, I like the technical progress it has experienced since, and I actually remember technical discussions before year 2000 on the problems with SysVinit, and syslog and the lack of coordination of the Linux plumbing layer.

    To me systemd was an answer to my prayers with what I didn't like with Linux: SysVinit (it is only simple when doing simple things, and it is only simple because it outsources complexities into daemons etc, the complexities are still there.), service management; new and inconsistent tools among each distro, and lets not forget the time wasted on grafting some service management system on top. Logging too. I had high hopes for Rsyslog when they started in 2005, and while I really respect their work, they didn't solve several of the problems they set out to solve (perhaps not incidentally many of the same problems systemd have actually solved). The reason wasn't lack of will, but total lack of coordination in Linux between userland, the OS layer (where Rsyslog belongs) and kernel.

    I have always played with new tech, including ones I didn't have a need for at the moment. So when systemd came out, I actually sat down one afternoon and just started to read, and read the documentation. I then started to play around with it. It really convinced me how good systemd was, and how much potential it has.

    systemd is different, and it really does require some serious studying in order to use it. You just can't wing it, even if you have loads SysVinit/Upstart experience.

    There are several technical things I like about systemd and I find superior to similar solutions, especially security. But perhaps what I really like about _using_ systemd is how much the developers care for the end users. It is in the small details like awesome bash-completion, sane defaults, how everything us documented in the man-pages, there is even a manpage containing a list of all the systemd man-pages (man systemd.index ) and a reverse list of every file, config option, CLI option etc (man systemd.directives) and overview pages like "man bootup" that shows and explain the boot process. And the way they abstract away all the difficult bits into simple declarative statements that goes into structured text files. And tools like "systemd-delta" that instantly gives an overview of changed service files.

  13. Re:Piss off systemd by grcumb · · Score: 5, Funny

    Systemd conference -- you're going whether you want to or not.

    Oh for fuck sakes, you neckbeards never give up, do you?

    First off, it's not a conference at all. We're just putting a few hundred people into the same room and giving talks. Just because you think that's a conference doesn't make it one. It's actually a confluence, which is something completely different that we just made up right now.

    Second, nobody's forcing you to go. We're just relocating your office there for the week. If you have a problem with that, take it up with your boss. We didn't force anyone to move; we only changed the location of the building you're presently occupying.

    Third, it's not one conference at all. It's just a collection of independent sessions in which a sentence is started in one session

    and finished in another. But they're complete

    ly independent of one another.

    And why do you hate Dear Lead—er, Lennart so much? I find his work inspiring, a triumph of the will... if you will. His Kamp—er, his struggle— has been an inspiration for everyone who loves the discipline and honour of coding in der recht*cough*sorry in the Right Way. It's merely historical necessity that you unterprogrammers must be dealt with. No mercy for the dirty hippies! You cannot continue harming the purity of the FatherCode! Hail SystemD! Lebensraum for SystemD!

    --
    Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.