Slashdot Mirror
Does Systemd Make Linux Complex, Error-Prone, and Unstable? (ungleich.ch)
"Systemd developers split the community over a tiny detail that decreases stability significantly and increases complexity for not much real value." So argues Nico Schottelius, talking about his experiences as the CEO of a Swiss company providing VM hosting, datacenters, and high-speed fiber internet. Long-time Slashdot reader walterbyrd quotes Nico's essay:
While I am writing here in flowery words, the reason to use Devuan is hard calculated costs. We are a small team at ungleich and we simply don't have the time to fix problems caused by systemd on a daily basis. This is even without calculating the security risks that come with systemd. Our objective is to create a great, easy-to-use platform for VM hosting, not to walk a tightrope...
[W]hat the Devuan developers are doing is creating stability. Think about it not in a few repeating systemd bugs or about the insecurity caused by a huge, monolithic piece of software running with root privileges. Why do people favor Linux on servers over Windows? It is very easy: people don't use Windows, because it is too complex, too error prone and not suitable as a stable basis. Read it again. This is exactly what systemd introduces into Linux: error prone complexity and instability. With systemd the main advantage to using Linux is obsolete.
The essay argues that while Devuan foisted another choice into the community, "it is not their fault. Creating Devuan is simply a counteraction to ensure Linux stays stable. which is of high importance for a lot of people."
[W]hat the Devuan developers are doing is creating stability. Think about it not in a few repeating systemd bugs or about the insecurity caused by a huge, monolithic piece of software running with root privileges. Why do people favor Linux on servers over Windows? It is very easy: people don't use Windows, because it is too complex, too error prone and not suitable as a stable basis. Read it again. This is exactly what systemd introduces into Linux: error prone complexity and instability. With systemd the main advantage to using Linux is obsolete.
The essay argues that while Devuan foisted another choice into the community, "it is not their fault. Creating Devuan is simply a counteraction to ensure Linux stays stable. which is of high importance for a lot of people."
it turns out that, on arm embedded systems at the very least, where context-switching is a little slower and booting off of microsd cards results in amplification of any performance-related issues associated with drive reads/writes when compared to an SSD or HDD, sysvinit easily outperforms systemd for boot times.
I don't think there's a problem with the idea of systemd. Having a standard way to handle process start-up, dependencies, failures, recovery, "contracts", etc... isn't a bad, or unique, thing -- Solaris has Service Manager, for example.
the difference is that solaris is - was - written and maintained by a single vendor. they have - had - the resources to keep it running, and you "bought in" to the sun microsystems (now oracle) way, and that was that. problems? pay oracle some money, get support... fixed.
free software is not *just* about a single way of doing things... because the single way doesn't fit absolutely *all* cases. take angstrom linux for example: an embedded version of GNU/Linux that doesn't even *have* an init system! you're expected to write your own initialisation system with hard-coded entries in /dev. why? because on an embedded system with only 32mb of RAM there *wasn't room* to run an init service.
then also we have freebsd and netbsd to consider, where security is much tighter and the team is smaller. in short: in the free software world unlike solaris there *is* no "single way" and any "single way" is guaranteed to be a nightmare pain-in-the-ass for at least somebody, somewhere.
this is what the "majority voting" that primarily debian - other distros less so because to some extent they have a narrower focus than debian - completely failed to appreciate. the "majority rule" decision-making, for all that it is blindly accepted to be "How Democracy Works" basically pissed in the faces of every debian sysadmin who has a setup that the "one true systemd way" does not suit - for whatever reason, where that reason ultimately DOES NOT MATTER, betraying an IMPLICIT trust placed by those extremely experienced users in the debian developers that you DO NOT fuck about with the underlying infrastructure without making it entirely optional.
now, it has to be said that the loss of several key debian developers, despite the incredible reasonable-ness of the way that they went about making their decision, made it clear to the whole debian team quite how badly they misjudged things: joey hess leaving with the declaration that debian's charter is a "toxic document" for example, and on that basis they have actually tried very hard to undo some of that damage.
the problem is that their efforts simply don't go far enough. udisk2, policykit, and several absolutely CRITICAL programs without which it is near flat-out impossible to run a desktop system - all gone. the only way to get those back is to add http://angband.pl/debian/ to /etc/apt/sources.list and use the (often out-of-date) nosystemd recompiled versions of packages that SHOULD BE A PERMANENT PART OF DEBIAN.
in essence: whilst debian developers are getting absolutely fed up of hearing about systemd, they need to accept that the voices that tell them that there is a problem - even though those voices cannot often actually quite say precisely what is wrong - are never, ever, going to stop, UNTIL the day that the role played by http://angband.pl/debian/ is absorbed into the main debian packaging, providing "Replaces / Provides / Conflicts" alternatives of pulseaudio, libcups, bsdutils, udev, util-linux, uuid-runtime, xserver-xorg and many more - all with a -nosystemd extension on the package name.
ONLY WHEN it is possible for debian users to run a debian system COMPLETELY free of everything associated with systemd - including libsystemd - will the utterly relentless voices and complaints stop, because only then, FINALLY, will people feel safer about running a debian system where there is absolutely NO possibility of harm, cost or inconvenience caused by the poisonous and utterly irresponsible attitude shown by pottering, with his blatant disregard for security, good design practices, and complete lack of respect for other peoples' valuable input by abruptly and irra
... their only arguments are hyperbolic personal attacks. (Look, I can do that too!)
Hint: Your side is just as stupid as your opposing site. There is no sane or reasonable, let alone sensible side. Because that is how Americans are. At least it is beyond their *tiny* mental box.
Regarding systemd, I state *both* A and B:
A) Monolithic "frameworks" have always been a stupid idea. Because they disable you from plugging them into *your* system, and force you to plug into *theirs*. Because they want to dominate you! And they are mutually exclusive as a result of that.
B) Traditional init systems are very limited and badly limiting nowadays. Like still using DOS as the underpinnings of your actual system. A more generic event/trigger system is much more sensible.
THE PROBLEM IS: That systemd throws away what's good about traditional init systems (like "everything is a file"; modularity; being able to do things with a simple file manager, text editor and maybe a script.).
It could have done the event/trigger thing *without* sacrificing modularity (tools that do *one* thing, and do it right!).
It could have acted less like a dominatrix on a power trip, swallowing everything.
The base ideas were good. The personality of the way it was implemented, was that of a complete egocentric psychopathic asshole with a god complex.
Give me a sane eventd, and I will ditch the old init system before you can blink.