Slashdot Mirror
Systemd Rolls Out Its Own Mount Tool (phoronix.com)
An anonymous Slashdot reader writes: I'm surprised this hasn't surfaced on Slashdot already, but yesterday Phoronix reported that systemd will soon be handling file system mounts, along with all the other stuff that systemd has encompassed. The report generated the usual systemd arguments over on Reddit.com/r/linux with Lennart Poettering, systemd developer and architect, chiming in with a few clarifications.
Lennart argued it will greatly improve the handling of removable media like USB sticks.
Lennart argued it will greatly improve the handling of removable media like USB sticks.
That would be funny if it weren't true.
Yep. That won't stop the hivemind from shouting against it, though. According to Slashdotters, everything must be done as it's always been done, regardless of any externalities.
Meanwhile, I have a server (based on an ugly inherited design) that has to figure out its remote filesystems based on the network structure, as determined by a user-run script. The process I inherited was to boot the server, run the script, then mount the filesystems it reported needing. Then and only then could the main daemon be started manually.
Fuck that.
An upcoming rework will automate the process with scripts, but it seems like the sort of thing that falls right in systemd's wheelhouse. Systemd's goal is to start the system services, which would reasonably include my daemon. It therefore also seems reasonable that systemd could have access to mounting functions, to ensure the system is ready to start that daemon.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
So it's subsumed the auto mounter. That is no better.
Systemd objections are not about "any change is bad". They're about "this change is bad".
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Indeed. We didn't mind simpleinit, or upstart or openRC or slackware's BSD-init - all of these were different init systems in the past. We didn't mount autofs or any of a dozen mount helpers added on top of the unix basic during the years.
To suggest that the opposition to SystemD is generically opposing change is to ignore that the people opposing it have been embracing change in all the areas where it plays for decades and are STILL embracing change in those areas - we're just not embracing THIS change because we believe it's badly designed. Having this many basic tools in a common code-base with massive interdependency that makes it near impossible to swap tools out with other tools or run any of them without running all of them... THAT Is a terrible design.
Hell, we don't even do that on the desktop where it may almost make sense. For over a decade KDE has had performance improvements if you run KDE apps in a KDE desktop - but never, once, did we have a KDE app you couldn't run under Gnome or OpenBox or any other DE you want. The coupling was always weak - use the features when available, don't depend on them. And vice versa - all the apps ran under all the desktops. You didn't struggle to run gimp or libreOffice if you chose KDE as your desktop - despite neither of them being written for it. In fact, there were patches you could install to integrate them better which were entirely optional.
That's a good design.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Better for distro maintainers != better for users or better for Linux.
Better is an ENTIRELY subjective thing. Better at what ? Better *how* ?
Whether something is demonstrably better depends on what your chosen measurements are. That's like saying a Boeing 747 is demonstrably better a motorcycle.
Whether or not the statement is true depends entirely on the job description. If the job description is 'ferrying lots of people from coast to coast" then it's true, if the job description is "getting to the other side of town with minimal traffic problems" then it's utterly false.
No systemd is NOT better than anything by many, many measures. The only thing it is consistently better at is making distro maintainers' jobs easier. That's not a bad thing, but it's the wrong metric. Here in my country we have a similar issue in the medical insurance field. The largest local insurer by a long shot is also demonstrably the worst insurer you can have. They frequently refuse to pay claims they are liable for (relying on the imbalance of power their wealth gives them should a client choose to sue). Their customer service is absolutely atrocious.
So how the hell did they get to be the biggest insurer ? Because the deals they offer employers is demonstrably the best in the market. They save employers lots of money, so employers make them the default insurance offered - and employees are stuck with the worst insurance imaginable.
That's pretty much the relationship with systemd and distro-maintainers versus users.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
You know it's weird, but there is literally not a single thing on your list that Linux hasn't been used for successfully and doing successfully for the better part of 20 years. None of these are new problems. So since systemD is only 6 years old and most major distro's didn't adopt it until the last 3, I guess all of us were just suffering some mass delusion when we watched all this stuff working beautifully back in 2000 when nobody had ever concevied of systemD - and progressively get better every year since.
Now nobody is saying that there cannot be better solutions for this - what I can tell you is that a better solution CANNOT come from a massive bunch of tightly coupled tools with opague interfaces that are so utterly cross dependent that none of them can run (at least without massive hacks) unless you also run all the others.
The ONLY way to EVER do a good solution - especially at the system level - is to build it out of lots of LOOSELY coupled tiny bits that don't care how you put them together or what you put them together with (including pieces that the creators never knew existed).
That design has allowed an OS first compiled in 1969 to scale to the largest supercomputers and the smallest embedded devices alike, to survive 50 years of computing history jumping from platform to platform and architecture to architecture, resilient across one major revolution after the other - because it could adapt to any need and any use-case. Because you never had to redesign it to meet a new challenge, you just had to add a few small tools to the mix, and put the others together in a new way.
The lego-blocks approach is the heart and soul of the unix philosophy - and it's a philosophy worth preserving because that philosophy is literally the ONLY thing that has caused Unix to be the single longest-living architecture in computer history. It's an architecture that's so easy to evolve that no revolution was out of it's reach. From mainframes to PC's to phones - it went where the hardware went and was consistently the most reliable and cheapest and fit-for-purpose answer because it was designed to be easy to rebuild by simply taking the blocks and hooking them up in a new way that Kernighan and Ritchie never imagined.
In other words - everything SystemD is not.
We love doing things in new ways, we love change - but we're GOOD at spotting the difference between progress and regression - and systemd is NOT progress, systemD is doing on Linux the exact same mistakes that every operating system besides unix in history has made. If it remains dominant too long - the outcome will be that Linux goes the way of Multics or VMS because, like those, it will not be able to survive the next revolution.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *