Slashdot Mirror


Will You Be Able To Run a Modern Desktop Environment In 2016 Without Systemd?

New submitter yeupou writes: Early this year, David Edmundson from KDE, concluded that "In many cases [systemd] allows us to throw away large amounts of code whilst at the same time providing a better user experience. Adding it [systemd] as an optional extra defeats the main benefit". A perfectly sensible explanation. But, then, one might wonder to which point KDE would remain usable without systemd?

Recently, on one Devuan box, I noticed that KDE power management (Powerdevil) no longer supported suspend and hibernate. Since pm-utils was still there, for a while, I resorted to call pm-suspend directly, hoping it would get fixed at some point. But it did not. So I wrote a report myself. I was not expecting much. But neither was I expecting it to be immediately marked as RESOLVED and DOWNSTREAM, with a comment accusing the "Debian fork" I'm using to "ripe out" systemd without "coming with any of the supported solutions Plasma provides". I searched beforehand about the issue so I knew that the problem also occurred on some other Debian-based systems and that the bug seemed entirely tied to upower, an upstream software used by Powerdevil. So if anything, at least this bug should have been marked as UPSTREAM.

While no one dares (yet) to claim to write software only for systemd based operating system, it is obvious that it is now getting quite hard to get support otherwise. At the same time, bricks that worked for years without now just get ruined, since, as pointed out by Edmunson, adding systemd as "optional extra defeats its main benefit". So, is it likely that we'll still have in 2016 a modern desktop environment, without recent regressions, running without systemd?

8 of 785 comments (clear)

  1. Yeah by Nemyst · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just use Windows.

    Zips up flame-proof suit. Dons shaded goggles.

  2. Re:Yes! by OzPeter · · Score: 5, Funny

    what exactly is OS X missing?

    The troll's righteous indignation?

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  3. Re:If we're going systemd, we should go full throt by nuckfuts · · Score: 4, Funny

    As we've all learned from Apple: No half-assed shit. Do or don't do.

    I believe that was taught by Yoda, not Apple.

  4. Re:yes by AC-x · · Score: 4, Funny

    Shhhh, don't let Stallman hear you say that! Now repeat after me, Linux is just the kernel; GNU is the OS, Linux is just the kernel; GNU is the OS :)

  5. FSF choices by unixisc · · Score: 5, Funny

    Speaking of which, if one can figure out a way to install emacs on systemd, one has the perfect system - no need to worry about linux vs bsd if all emacs needs to use are services provided by systemd

    1. Re:FSF choices by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Funny

      Speaking of which, if one can figure out a way to install emacs on systemd, one has the perfect system - no need to worry about linux vs bsd if all emacs needs to use are services provided by systemd

      You'd still need to additionally install a text editor.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    2. Re:FSF choices by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Wait a week, I'm sure some of the systemd authors are working one now. It will only save its data in incompatible binary modes, will fracture the kernel on a regular basis, and will replace every file you edit with a symlink to /tmpfiles.d/. But hey, it least it will start fiast!

  6. Re:Duh by GlennC · · Score: 4, Funny

    The kernel is much more complex than an init system

    For now, it is. Just give the Systemd team a little more time, and that may change.

    --
    Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.