Slashdot Mirror
Systemd-Free Artix Linux OS is Looking For Packagers (artixlinux.org)
MrBrklyn (Slashdot reader #4,775) writes: Artix Linux, the young systemd free OS based on arch, is reaching a critical point in it's development and calling for new packagers.
Here's more from the ongoing thread on the project's forum: You don't have to be an expert in the occult arts for that; an elementary grasp of Linux in general and how PKGBUILD works should be enough for basic contributions. Help and training will be provided, free of charge!
Here's more from the ongoing thread on the project's forum: You don't have to be an expert in the occult arts for that; an elementary grasp of Linux in general and how PKGBUILD works should be enough for basic contributions. Help and training will be provided, free of charge!
Most likely it will be the usual, RTFM!
... but also want to run Arch you mean. There are already a few systemd-free Linux distros.
It replaces SysV init.
Basically, SysV init meant there was a lot of duplicated code involved in starting system services, as every service had to write its own SysV init script, and didn't provide a dependency mechanism (this service requires this other service be running first) so that most distros ended up hacking on a solution to provide that. (Basic example is "web server requires network running before it can start.")
systemd solves those problems and then introduces a whole host of brand new problems. Whether or not you want to deal with the brand new problems systemd adds defines whether or not it's "better" than SysV init. It does legitimately solve some issues, but it also makes the boot sequence unpredictable and way more complicated, along with other issues there's no good reason for it to have, like logs that aren't human-readable and moving random system functions into init for no good reason.
Or, in short:
Good idea: replacing SysV init
Bad idea: replacing SysV init with systemd
Anyone who is skilled, and looks at systemd, will lose his hair very quickly, at the insane "framework" shit, that only the worsr "enterprisey consultant" of the iHipster generation could come up with.
No, the traditional systems aren't great.
But suggesting systemd instead, is like suggesting somebody should try ass rape by a horse because she thinks nipple pinching hurts a bit.
How about *a sane new system*??
Neither the old clunker, NOR systemd cancer!
I am scientist. I have to learn new stuff every day. I develop new stuff every day. But I have no sympathy for people wasting my time by breaking standard tools or conventions with no good reason. And the "you are just to lazy to learn new things" argument is just BS. I want to spend my time learning interesting things and not have to relearn how to do basic stuff with my computer because some random dude at Redhat thinks the ideas he has are so important that he can waste the time of everybody else.
Funny, I am a scientist and an engineer, and I can evolve. But since I am a good scientist and a good engineer, I will not evolve in a bad direction, and hence I will not use systemd. Live is just to short to use crappy unnecessary improvements made by people with small skills and huge egos.
Mindlessly running after a really demented hype is not "evolution". The correct term is "devolution" and it is not a good thing.
Incidentally, if you cannot recognize and build on things that are in a finished state and are more than good enough, then you are most definitely not a scientist or an engineer. Then you are just a hack.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Go home Lennart, the adults are talking.
I don't agree that replacing sysIV init is a good idea. All the arguments for that boil down to "not invented here".
Why is it that so many tech people cannot let things that work well the fuck alone?
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Around 2014, with the switch to Systemd, Debian started to decline in popularity. This was followed by the equally stunning change in Ubuntu to the same init system. By 2018, it was apparent that both distributions were headed to the scrap heap of history as they had lost nearly 80% of their user base in the 3 intervening years.
Oh, wait, that didn't actually happen? Debian/Ubuntu still has the same userbase in the Linux Desktop and Server markets it had before the Systemd change?
I guess the markets have spoken, and the predictions of doomsday were nothing more than the echo chamber effect of a very small and very vocal minority of people who do not appear to represent either Linux users or Linux developers as a whole. That is the only explanation that fits the facts.
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
This issue is only for Luddites who are stuck in the past. Once systemd achieves its ultimate goal of moving every available service and user application into a single executable, distros aren't even going to need "packages" anymore.
SysVInit worked fine for me, and no it doesn't boot slower. See what systemD does if you've got stuff waiting for network and for whatever reason there's no network or it's flakey. No warning at all - just no boot, or eventually a boot with no warning. .share way.
Why do I have to learn it's log and status tools after already having had to learn the other way of just using a text editor and knowing some filenames? I have other stuff to learn.
How helpful.
See what systemd does about share mounting in fstab or even the
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
I don't agree that replacing sysIV init is a good idea. All the arguments for that boil down to "not invented here".
Why is it that so many tech people cannot let things that work well the fuck alone?
+1 Wish I had mod points for that. It seems like so many people think mature software is bad or something. Sure, Sys-init/Upstart/whatever had its issues at times (and usually in very small ways), but there were solutions to those warts; it's just that no one really put all the parts together, or so it seems to me.
I've had Systemd fail me in mysterious ways where the system refused to come up (1 I never figured out and solved by backing Systemd out), but I've never had Sys-init/Upstart/whatever fail to boot far enough I couldn't do something with it (and it fails me even in tiny ways so infrequently it's been years since that happened).
To me as a *user*, Systemd feels like a solution in search of a problem. I know the distro/package maintainers like it because it creates less work for them, but I think this is a case where the distro/package maintainers have forgotten at least 1 of their goals: to make it easier on the user.
The original purpose of systemd was to replace System V init.
They did replace System V init, in a very non-Unix-like way, with a monolithic blob full of binary interfaces, Windows-style.
They then continued to merge in more and more stuff, like a friggin DNS server. Had they stopped before replacing Network Manager with yet another integrated blob, systemd would just be a poorly thought out init system which is the opposite of the UNIX way of doing things. Since they didn't stop, but rather continue to merge more and more unrelated stuff, it's a real problem.
I had systemd run maybe for a combined 10h so far, in a number of new installations. Nothing but problems. Even the one where I originally thought I could leave it in (Orange Pi zero), it caused serious problems and ripping it just out for sysIV init was far easier than to track down and solve its obscure issues.
It is like Windows: Unless you do exactly what the "developers" ("cretins" would be a more appropriate term...) expect, it falls flat on its face and it is maximally unhelpful when you try to find out what is wrong. That is not anything I will tolerate in a Linux installation.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
+1 Wish I had mod points for that.
Thanks!
It seems like so many people think mature software is bad or something.
It does indeed. Must be some deranged idea about "old"="bad".
To me as a *user*, Systemd feels like a solution in search of a problem. I know the distro/package maintainers like it because it creates less work for them, but I think this is a case where the distro/package maintainers have forgotten at least 1 of their goals: to make it easier on the user.
This often happens when the original creators move out and the 2nd rated people take over: They think they can do better than the original creators and usually they mess it up because they completely overlook fundamental things like this. "Linux is about freedom" very much means it lets you tinker with it and all things that can reasonably be made relatively easy to change, are. sysIV init has that. The systemD people do not even seem to be aware of the idea.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
You're absolutely right. When I went from Centos 6x to Centos 7x I had to learn nothing to make the box go from 100% uptime to crashing 2-3 times a week. Systemd is great, for no known reason it took a perfectly working system and turned it into a metal case full of steaming shit. Systemd only helps DIstro builders, it does NOTHING for any System Admin or Server wrangler. I have real work to do on my computers, so fixing a distro's fatal flaw isn't (and never will be) on my todo list.
Like the intern who wrote the Linux kernel. I've heard dishonest critism like that for decades and it always comes from some deep seated basic misunderstanding of how the world work. Most init scripts are not written by interns, but those that are, that is OK as well.
It is better than trusting everything to a single development team .... one I am not particularly trustful of.
http://www.mrbrklyn.com/amsterdam.html http://www.brooklyn-living.com
>>It replaces SysV init.
No - it replaced all the core OS functionality. If it just replaced SysV there would have been some grumbling, but not all the outright hostility.
http://www.mrbrklyn.com/amsterdam.html http://www.brooklyn-living.com
The previous standard interactions with init, including the use of shell scripts in /etc/init.d, and the chkconfig and service commands still work. You don't actually need to learn anything new unless you want to take advantage of the new features that systemd offers.
So you might be able to see why your argument rings hollow.
That is not true on both fronts. The standard init stuff does not work with systemd. Not the login scripts, the X scripts, sound scripts, and more.
Secodnly, you do need to learn how systemd does weird stuff, unless you want a system where systemd allows any password to work with sudo - and other weird stuff that has leaked into the distros.
The distros that adopted systemd didn't just keep using the same init scripts. They adapted to it. In order to get around it, everything is affected from udev on up the food chain. The borad change in the distros since adaptation can not be avoided because of a smug comment on slashdot.
http://www.mrbrklyn.com/amsterdam.html http://www.brooklyn-living.com
Artix Linux is an Arch Linux derivative, and it uses the same package system as Arch does. If you want the Debian derivative, that's called Devuan.
Artix
Your Linux, your init.
That's a weird way to say "There aren't really that many developers or other technically skilled users who don't want systemd."
And that is just half of it. Systemd breaks a lot of existing systems, and most importantly, its direction promises to waste ever more time breaking things that have been working smoothly for decades by using a completely new paradigm. That means that for older users, instead of being able to rely on established and well learned paradigms that took years to do a deep learning to master, and to move forward with more important and newer skills, that they have to double back and relearn the basics again, and for no good reason other than twisted egos of people 20 years younger.
For younger people what it means is that they will never learn what a truly open system that is well designed is like. Everything is now tied in and held close to the breast in one hog of a binary that only understands a top down approach to OS design. But hey, you never miss what you never had.
As for the post itself, it speaks plainly and doesn't need a malicious rewording. Like any other distro, they are less than a year old and working on building a community. It says nothing about how many developers or other technically skilled users who don't want systemd. How ever many that there are, and there are probably millions, as usually only a few have the time and financial independence to dedicate to writing an OS for free. ***So if you are interest, this is a great way to learn about package management and OS design, and here is a chance to get in while the ceiling is still low. If you are not interest... really who cares. Don't volunteer then. You are just a noise making troll pissed of to see someone else enjoying the party.***
http://www.mrbrklyn.com/amsterdam.html http://www.brooklyn-living.com
I agree with you that far too little effort has been extended in pushing systemd concepts as standards outside Linux, and the scope has been distressingly ambitious.
Still, systemd is a great improvement over the respawn behavior of inittab, allowing me to drop root privilege, set environment variables, chroot(), all combined with restart supervision. Yes, there are likely many other programs that do this, but respawn is SysV's job, and it should be more flexible. As it stands, when I have to do this, I write a bunch of shims either with shell scripts or custom C, and I've had do it on a wide variety of legacy operating systems.
The inetd.conf also benefits from most of these new features, although I uncovered a bug with socket activation and chroot() that I was able to work around that has since been fixed.
Improvements to respawn and inetd are the killer features for me, and give me things that simply cannot be done with standard tools on other POSIX-focused operating systems.
SysV init should be extended to cover these uses, and I would feel more nostalgic for it were new versions to emerge.