Assumptions
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| tuxchick Sep 06, 2014 10:08 AM EDT |
They keep saying 'Linux NEEEEEEDs a new init system!' First debatable point. Then 'Systemd is the answer!' I've come to believe that no, it isn't. I'm OK with an init replacement-- if it's better. Systemd is more like a coup that inserts itself deeply into all aspects of a running system. A big fat bloaty one that does everything the wrong way for just because. |
| 750 Sep 06, 2014 10:52 AM EDT |
I find it funny that Openrc was left out of the list of alternatives, yet mentioned a couple that i have not heard about before and that didn't show up during the Debian debate at all. And yep. The problem with Systemd is not its merits as a init, but that the project is replacing utilities and such left and right with barely a fig leaf towards backwards compatibility. |
| rahulsundaram Sep 06, 2014 12:25 PM EDT |
@750, openrc showed in Debian debates plenty of times. The technical committee favored systemd over the alternatives such as openrc and upstart. If you are curious, the details are public As to the systemd suite of tools, most of them are optional and for things it replaces, there is a lot of backwards compatibility features to aid adoption and the exceptions are clearly documented http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/Incompatibi... If you want to point out any specific issues, that would be worth debating |
| JaseP Sep 06, 2014 1:13 PM EDT |
The funny thing is that the author wants us to believe that adopting systemd is necessary... But when you read his "VS" chart, any number of alarming things pop out (timer based activation [cron/at vs PROPRIETARY], portable to non-x86 [yes, no], separate code and configuration file [yes, no], static kernel module loading [no, yes], verbose debug [yes, no], easy extensive startup script [yes, no], number of files, lines of code,... etc.). He basically says it himself when he says that anything running as pid=1 needs NOT to fail... It's almost as if he's arguing for staying with init, and then concluding the opposite. Maybe his intent was sarcasm, and it just didn't read that way?!?! |
| rahulsundaram Sep 06, 2014 1:43 PM EDT |
@JaseP, systemd set of tools are individual binaries and other than init system does not run as PID 1. Nothing other than udev and journald is required (and journald doesn't even need to log to disk at all) Maybe you missed that? |
| tuxchick Sep 06, 2014 2:30 PM EDT |
rahulsundaram, you ought to read the existing systemd discussions. It's kind of annoying when someone drops into a topic without looking at what has already been discussed. http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/35560/ http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/35529/ |
| 750 Sep 06, 2014 3:17 PM EDT |
@rahul, you misread me. The article mentions a couple of alternatives to Systemd that i have never heard about, yet never brings up Openrc. This even tho Openrc was up for consideration in Debian while those mentioned in the article never showed. |
| rahulsundaram Sep 06, 2014 3:44 PM EDT |
@tuxchick. If you want to point out somethin please be specific. I don't know what you think I missed |
| notbob Sep 06, 2014 4:13 PM EDT |
OK, rahu. What specific mechanisms, tools, etc, does the avg systemd user have to allow reading/editing logs, config files, etc, and how easy are they to access? We keep hearing about all these alleged features that allow easy access to all those binary blobby thingies, jes as easily as plain text scripts in old init. Well, what are they and how do they work? ;) |
| rahulsundaram Sep 06, 2014 4:24 PM EDT |
My name is Rahul. Fyi The freedesktop wiki page has extensive documentation that answers introductory questions but if you have read them and anything is particular is unclear let me know |
| flufferbeer Sep 06, 2014 4:27 PM EDT |
@notbob, >> What specific mechanisms, tools, etc, does the avg systemd user have to allow reading/editing logs, config files, etc, and how easy are they to access? We keep hearing about all these alleged features that allow easy access to all those binary blobby thingies, jes as easily as plain text scripts in old init. Well, what are they and how do they work? ;) EXCELLENT questions. To which I doubt rahu really wishes to directly and clearly answer, as a systemdeviloper Yes-Man. Although he PROBABLY will manage to foist plausible answers onto a vague place on some external webpage. Has even specifically AVOIDED 750's claim that the Openrc alternative was never mentioned in THIS article. Epic fail 2.0! 2c |
| rahulsundaram Sep 06, 2014 4:34 PM EDT |
Hmm. It is not my article. Not sure why you think it is |
| rahulsundaram Sep 06, 2014 4:45 PM EDT |
If you are going to silently edit what you said would you mind not insisting on misspelling my name? Thanks |
| jdixon Sep 06, 2014 6:00 PM EDT |
> @tuxchick. If you want to point out somethin please be specific. I don't know what you think I missed Why don't you start by pointing out the specific problems with the current system? And since you don't seem to want to read links where such matters have already been discussed, don't bother providing links. State them yourself. If the current system is so broken that it must be replaced, surely it's possible to explain why in a few simple paragraphs in layman's language. |
| rahulsundaram Sep 06, 2014 6:17 PM EDT |
The current system is systemd and I don't have any problems with it |
| TxtEdMacs Sep 06, 2014 6:55 PM EDT |
Mr. or is it Raj Rahul The only thing that seems to disturb you is having you name spelled wrong. Is that the cause for your failing to answer direct questions? If so it aligns with petty spite. If you have real knowledge really enlighten us. As always, YBT |
| rahulsundaram Sep 06, 2014 7:06 PM EDT |
@TxtEdMacs My full name is spelled clearly as part of my id. If one person misspells it and I point it out and second one does it again, it does bother me When "flufferbeer" mistakenly claimed that the article being discussed was mine and I pointed it out, it wasn't, he silently changed his words from "OWN" to "THIS" and failed to correct the mistake in the name, it bothered me. If instead of accepting that it is entirely rude to do such things, you join along with that and add "raj" to my name, it bothers me. If you seek "real knowledge", you will have to communicate to the other person, what is that you seek. If you ask questions, I pointed out references, that to me is a direct answer. |
| gus3 Sep 06, 2014 7:09 PM EDT |
/me breaks out the popcorn |
| seatex Sep 06, 2014 7:34 PM EDT |
/me breaks out the beer, sets up the heat shield and locks the weapons cabinet. |
| albinard Sep 06, 2014 7:58 PM EDT |
/me goes to a source of information:
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/l-customize-monito... |
| jdixon Sep 06, 2014 8:23 PM EDT |
> The current system is systemd and I don't have any problems with it Good for you. My current system doesn't use systemd. And I don't have any problems with it. So I guess there's absolutely no reason for it to change. This is apparently what passes for discussion in the systemd camp, and yet they're the ones who demand that we change or give them reasons why. If systemd actually is forced on Linux users, the BSD's are starting to look good. |
| theBeez Sep 06, 2014 8:25 PM EDT |
The article is the most incomprehensible piece of junk I've seen in a long time, that doesn't answer anything suggested in the title. On top of that it's littered with spelling and grammatical errors, which makes reading the whole thing especially annoying. To prevent falling into the pitfall of giving the author the excuse of turning the whole discussion into a lament about us misspelling his name (possibly accusing us of blatent racism in the end) I will simply continue to refer to him as "the author". Because it's all a distraction. Stuff like this isn't even worth publishing on LXer, simply because it lacks an essential quality: QUALITY. And we're spending over 20 comments over this without even getting a single decent comment from this "author", who refrains from answering the most basic questions on his "article", but instead chooses to whine over and over again on our inability to spell his foreign name. Disgusting! |
| rahulsundaram Sep 06, 2014 8:30 PM EDT |
@jdixon "Good for you. My current system doesn't use systemd. And I don't have any problems with it. So I guess there's absolutely no reason for it to change." Sure. Major distributions switched away from sysvinit to upstart and then to systemd because sysvinit was no longer working well enough for them but we all have different needs and you can use whatever makes you happy. |
| rahulsundaram Sep 06, 2014 8:31 PM EDT |
@thebeez , I have already said I am not the author. I am puzzled since you are the second person in the thread to rant based on that assumption. |
| theBeez Sep 06, 2014 8:43 PM EDT |
@rahulsundaram No, I didn't, it's the name I gave you, remember. And for someone hiding behind the fact that he's NOT the athor, but very vocal concerning the use of systemd, pointing out that fact over and over again could be considered "weasel talk". |
| penguinist Sep 06, 2014 8:45 PM EDT |
Rahul, you are doing a great job defending your views. The LXer regulars are putting you to the test, but this is the rite of passage. Stay the course and you will have the respect and even admiration of your peers. I for one am on the fence with systemd. I see some advantages with it, and some loss of control as well, and I am glad to see that we have voices on both sides of this issue willing to articulate their views. Such community discussions are valuable; this is the way that the "bazar" sorts out its directions. |
| rahulsundaram Sep 06, 2014 8:49 PM EDT |
@thebeek, I don't understand your response. Your rant assumes that I am the author of the article which I am not and since you are the second person to make that assumption, I have to correct it twice as a result. Where is the "weasel talk" in that? Btw, how is a name "foreign" in an international website? |
| rahulsundaram Sep 06, 2014 9:24 PM EDT |
@penguinist I understand that view point. If anyone is willing to articulate their views from a technical perspective without the angry flaming that seems to be prevalent here, I would be happy to have a discussion with them. I just happened to look at lxer on a lazy weekend and posted out of my curiosity and the responses seem unnecessarily aggressive. |
| Ridcully Sep 06, 2014 9:50 PM EDT |
@rahulsundaram...........Quoting:I just happened to look at lxer on a lazy weekend and posted out of my curiosity and the responses seem unnecessarily aggressive. I wouldn't say that; perhaps warmly stated would be the better concept. But in any event rahulsundaram, may I direct your attention to what Tuxchick stated way, way, way up this thread: "rahulsundaram, you ought to read the existing systemd discussions. It's kind of annoying when someone drops into a topic without looking at what has already been discussed." This topic has already been posted several times in the news clips on the home page and has been the subject of VERY vigorous debate already.....I think you are kinda, sorta breaking into an already large discussion without knowing everything that has already been said.....May I respectfully suggest you go and acquaint yourself with the debates on some other LXer threads. No-one on this site will ever, ever attack you personally, but they will vigorously debate anything you have to say. That's why I like it so much. Penguinist above has already tried to say the same thing. Have fun. :-) PS........You might like to start here: http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/35529/ PPS....Also in defence of my very, very, very good friend TxtEdMacs, you should be aware that he delights in playing comedy with text and names.......You should see what he occasionally calls me during debates.....I just laugh helplessly.....I wouldn't take any offence if I were you - it's standard TxtEdMacs and simply indicates you're part of the "ingroup" as far as he is concerned. |
| BernardSwiss Sep 06, 2014 9:51 PM EDT |
Quoting:"Sure. Major distributions switched away from sysvinit to upstart and then to systemd because sysvinit was no longer working well enough for them but we all have different needs and you can use whatever makes you happy. " Actually, as far as I can tell from what I've heard, most distros that "switched to" systemd did so not because they examined it, and found it better (which though I might not like it, would deserve some respect), but rather, because so many other important projects/ pieces of software -- that used to be separate, independent software -- were made to be dependent on systemd, and it had become just too much work to rework and disentangle it all so it didn't have systemd as a dependency. - - - - - - - - - - This says more about how the free-software Linux world is organized these days -- some relatively small groups are well-supported by commercial entities and effectively isolated from having to pay meaningful attention to any perspectives they don't care for and any concerns they prefer to ignore. So the biggest problem with upstart was Canonical's insistence that contributors sign a CLA, giving up their rights to Canonical/Ubuntu, so it withered, regardless of its technical merits, while the biggest problem with systemd is that its developers have such an ensconced position on other, critical nodes of the Gnu/Linux development web, so systemd appears to be "succeeding" regardless of its technical merits. |
| rahulsundaram Sep 06, 2014 10:08 PM EDT |
@ Ridcully As I noted before, if you believe I have missed anything substantial, do let me know. I have glimpsed through it already long back and sorry to say I haven't gotten much in the way of a good discussion. @BernardSwiss Feel free to read through existing public discussions or talk to the technical committee of any major distribution including Fedora, Debian or openSUSE or Arch and ask them whether or not your assumption holds. I am confident in saying that they did choose it for its technical merits. Nothing gets this widely adopted if not by choice. |
| Ridcully Sep 06, 2014 10:27 PM EDT |
@rahulsundaram..........Absolutely NO with respect to my producing any summary !! I am neither a programmer nor developer; simply a person with a very keen interest in seeing Linux succeed world wide. My comments were made as an interested on-looker, but I do not have the expertise of most (more probably all) of the people who are presently commenting on this thread and I know my limitations. But given what I have seen, a "glimpse" on your part just won't be sufficient - a thorough and slow read would be far, far better. |
| rahulsundaram Sep 06, 2014 10:33 PM EDT |
@_Ridcully, I am happy to invest that kind of time if the discussions were articulated in the style of say Debian tech committee discussions on systemd. Strong but also thoughtful and with indepth knowledge of the tools. |
| jdixon Sep 06, 2014 10:36 PM EDT |
> Major distributions switched away from sysvinit to upstart and then to systemd because sysvinit was no longer working well enough for them I can name at least one major distribution that didn't. > I for one am on the fence with systemd. I was until the recent conversations started, and it became apparent that any and all criticism of systemd would be shouted down by the devs and supporters, rather than addressed. That's pretty much convinced me that I want nothing to do with it. Fortunately, my disto of choice will probably be one of the last ones to switch, if it ever does. |
| Ridcully Sep 06, 2014 10:38 PM EDT |
@rahulsundaram........Given your interesting response, I have nothing further to contribute. |
| rahulsundaram Sep 06, 2014 10:43 PM EDT |
@jdixon, I am sure you can and I can tell you more than one even depending on what you count as a major distribution. Didn't claim that ALL distributions have switched but it is likely they will at the minimum end up with the same interfaces for the low level tasks, particularly because some of them are going to be part of the kernel itself and I am fine with that. |
| JaseP Sep 07, 2014 12:05 AM EDT |
Quoting:@JaseP, systemd set of tools are individual binaries and other than init system does not run as PID 1. Nothing other than udev and journald is required (and journald doesn't even need to log to disk at all) Maybe you missed that? First, that is nowhere in the article, and it's contrary to other points about systemd that have been brought up before, elsewhere... Here's a blog from back in Feb. that discusses the whole process ID thing (the comments are worth a read too); http://ewontfix.com/14/ The point isn't that systemd can be scaled back to run in a minimal way. The point is that it shouldn't have to. As someone mentioned in the above link. The init system (be it init, Upstart, systemd, whatever) should run the init process, then get out of the way, except to mop up zombie processes. Systemd philosophy is to micro-manage the whole shebang. Second, the chart speaks for itself... Init systemd Number of Files 75 files 900 files + glib + DBus Lines of code – LOC 15000 (Approx) 224000 (Approx) They are trying to replace something simple (whether broken or not), with something complex. And, there's little to no benefit from doing that. |
| rahulsundaram Sep 07, 2014 12:42 AM EDT |
@JaseP, I was responding to what you said. Not what is in the article. If one wants to hear about how pid1 isn't really that special, Linus has his take on https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Mg5_gxNXTo I encourage everyone to watch that regardless of your interest in this discussion anyway. systemd is already used in a ton of embedded devices including cars and phones. Bloat isn't a real issue for any of them. If the choice is between simple and broken and complex but working and feature rich, obviously not being broken is the benefit not to mention providing features that bring major benefits. Instead of philosophy, let us consider a quick example ---- [Unit] Description=Daemon for local proxies Documentation=man:toold(8) ExecStart=/usr/bin/toold Restart=on-failure PrivateTmp=yes InaccessibleDirectories=/home ReadOnlyDirectories=/var PrivateNetwork=yes [Install] WantedBy=multi-user.target I think pretty much all of the features are self descriptive here. It is a full working example. No parts have been left out. Try and provide an equivalent example with any other init system |
| JaseP Sep 07, 2014 2:13 AM EDT |
OK,... You edited your response while I was making mine... So I'll address the "broken" thing only in this particular post... So it seems to come down to "broken,"... And it is just a matter of opinion that the existing init systems are broken, since they work and get the job done. I tried watching the YouTube video looking for where he says pid1 isn't that special. I caught only a part where he says he doesn't hate systemd. He was mostly concerned they didn't follow up on bug reports that the whole debug flag thing was broken. As for pid1 not being important, I couldn't find THAT, and wasn't willing to watch the whole thing (over an hour long,... By the way -- Do everyone a favor and don't quote from something that requires someone to waste an hour watching it, without referencing a time index... If you do that in the future, I'll claim you're lying unless you can point me to the time index... whether you are lying or not,... lie of omission and all...) Ultimately, it comes down to people being in one of three camps; 1) People who are all gung-ho about systemd, and will talk it up like a person putting feces on a stick and telling you it's a Popsicle,... 2) People who are skeptical about it, don't like the feature bloat, and will rant against it, even to the point of irrationality, and... 3) those who are either too uninformed to know, too scared to voice their opinion, or couldn't give a rat's behind. You can tell which of those camps I'm in (and I happen to be in the majority on this site). I can tell which of those camps you belong in too... |
| rahulsundaram Sep 07, 2014 2:32 AM EDT |
It doesn't come down to just being broken which is something you originally bought up but my practical example shows the benefits. Btw. I don't belong to any of the camps you mentioned. You should avoid trying to box people like that. Assuming goodwill will also be nice. i have had my say. If anyone wants to show their equivalent example in any other system feel free to take that up as your research project |
| flufferbeer Sep 07, 2014 2:45 AM EDT |
@JaseP, >> Ultimately, it comes down to people being in one of three camps; 1) People who are all gung-ho about systemd, and will talk it up like a person putting feces on a stick and telling you it's a Popsicle, 2) People who are skeptical about it, don't like the feature bloat, and will rant against it, and 3) those who are either too uninformed to know, too scared to voice their opinion, or couldn't give a rat's behind. You can tell which of those camps I'm in. I can tell which of those camps you belong in too... You are responding to this Rahulwhoever TROLL, and no question he is obviously in Camp 1. I also took the bait of looking at the YouTube video and his freedesktop.org link. Seems to me that he intentionally ignores the following part of the second link "However, there are some areas where compatibility is limited due to technical reasons or design decisions of systemd and the distributions", yada yada yada, then finally "Note that there are some areas where systemd currently provides a certain amount of compatibility where we expect this compatibility to be removed eventually." In other words, if the systemd devs have their complete way, systemd will become a malignant cancer and even take over the kernel itself, despite any attempts from Linus to stop it. JaseP, it seems to me that our particular systemd-virus apologist troll 1) is simply UNABLE to bother himself to clearly answer direct questions about systemd (such as those that notbob posed above), 2) continues to REFUSE to inform himself in order to address the valid points raised in the links provided above by those in our Camp 2, and 3) comes out as utterly DISMISSIVE of any notion that SysVinit mustn't be eliminated A.S.A.P.!! If you don't believe this, then go ahead and re-read this thread. http://boycottsystemd.org/ and more of my own 2c's |
| Ridcully Sep 07, 2014 4:01 AM EDT |
@ both flufferbeer and JaseP I wasn't going to join in any further given the response from "rahulsundaram" largely because I read some unpleasant innuendo in his short reply but was unwilling at that stage to throw petrol on the fire. However flufferbeer's text above leads me to one last little post on this thread - feel free to use or toss as you will. My daughter is a very experienced librarian technician who is used to collating and summarising large quantities of information; she's NOT a programmer. I showed her the text of the thread and the various responses down to my "ceasing to contribute". I often bow to her amazing ability to put apparently disjoint pieces of information together to produce an unforeseen result and on this occasion her immediate response to the thread was exactly one of those (and I quote her exact words): "Dad, he's a troll. Nothing else." I shouldn't bother with anymore of his posts, he's also an expert fisherman who's bored for something to do on a weekend. |
| JaseP Sep 07, 2014 4:06 AM EDT |
You're both right. I won't play the game any longer. I fold... |
| nmset Sep 07, 2014 10:54 AM EDT |
My 2 cents : systemd is an US political will to control any Linux system from userspace, through Red Hat as main developer and promoter. Disclaimer : I am not looking to be aggressive to any US citizen here, and I readily apologize in advance if this is the case. But we live in real world and not in RAM. After reading "systemd will become a malignant cancer and even take over the kernel itself, despite any attempts from Linus to stop it" my previous suspicions got confirmed. |
| notbob Sep 07, 2014 11:24 AM EDT |
> if the discussions were articulated in the style of say Debian tech committee discussions on systemd. First he (?) snivels endlessly about improper use of his name (nick?), then insults us by declaring our level of discussion to be below his standards. All this on top of his refusal to answer a simple direct question. I'm finally convinced. Troll! |
| theBeez Sep 07, 2014 12:21 PM EDT |
Well, I don't think systemd is a good idea either. If it's an option (like wanna have KDE or Gnome or ..) then go ahead, knock yourself out. If it's FORCED on me, I get a little more apprehensive. And yes, it's a cancer. You have to go long and far to find an uninfected distro - and even Slackware is not safe. Discussions on PCLOS and Mint are ongoing. The only thing that will stay "safe" for a while is "Less systemd". |
| kikinovak Sep 07, 2014 2:45 PM EDT |
Linux needs another init system like a fish needs a bicycle. |
| tuxchick Sep 07, 2014 3:41 PM EDT |
I'm glad people are bringing popcorn and beer, because it helps making the futile wait for a systemd supporter to outline a few coherent reasons why it's necessary and why it's good tolerable. |
| albinard Sep 07, 2014 3:48 PM EDT |
I posted one link. Here are more: http://0pointer.net/blog/projects/the-biggest-myths.html https://www.linux.com/learn/tutorials/527639-managing-servic... http://www.tecmint.com/systemd-replaces-init-in-linux/ |
| krisum Sep 07, 2014 4:21 PM EDT |
@Ridcully > I often bow to her amazing ability to put apparently disjoint pieces of information together to produce an unforeseen result and on this occasion her immediate response to the thread was exactly one of those (and I quote her exact words): "Dad, he's a troll. Nothing else." I shouldn't bother with anymore of his posts, he's also an expert fisherman who's bored for something to do on a weekend. This is very silly deduction. Rahul gave a practical example which is also not a contrived one. Unless someone can give a meaningful reply to his: "If anyone wants to show their equivalent example in any other system feel free to take that up as your research project". Sorry, to me you guys looked like the real trolls in this thread (especially after Rahul posted the example). Unable to come up with an any real answer to that, so called the "opponent" a troll. It was also interesting that the first mention of "troll" came immediately after Rahul posted his example, which was ironically the first meaningful input from his side in this thread. My opinion has been that though systemd is trying to solve some real problems, it is likely doing too much. But I will reserve further opinion until I have gotten my hands dirty with it. |
| krisum Sep 07, 2014 4:24 PM EDT |
@theBeez > If it's FORCED on me, I get a little more apprehensive. This is not a valid argument. One can very well turn it around and say "for decades, sysvinit was forced on me". |
| gus3 Sep 07, 2014 4:39 PM EDT |
SysV init was never forced on anyone, except by management policy. BSD and its init were always an option. |
| krisum Sep 07, 2014 5:01 PM EDT |
@tuxchick > systemd supporter to outline a few coherent reasons why it's necessary I can't say yet if systemd actually solves the real problems with the sysvinit system. Though I have read about it a lot and have also seen/written small examples, until I apply it to some real world scenarios cannot form an opinion. However, sysvinit certainly has some problems. The primary, in my mind, being lack of standardization. For a third-party vendor it is pretty much impossible to provide init scripts for their daemons which will work on majority of distributions while adhering correctly to their conventions. Consequently when vendors (like the one I work for) have to ship packages, then they ship/certify the init scripts for only a limited number of distros (typically limited to something like RHEL and Ubuntu for enterprise). This is certainly a problem for both the vendors and their users. The second, relatively minor to my mind, is lack of dependencies in sysvinit. This makes parallelizing services difficult, and even if someone were to write init scripts that run in parallel, they would be very brittle and a nightmare to maintain in the face of upgrades etc (unless one embeds own dependency logic that is). However, I do not see this as something "broken", rather a design choice of sysvinit. Of course, this is assuming that systemd does address these issues well. While I can understand systemd author's objection to upstart's event based design, on the face of it systemd's design and implementation does seem to meddle in too many of the services. Guess I will need to dig deeper into it to really form an opinion on these points. |
| JaseP Sep 07, 2014 5:07 PM EDT |
Another thing, re: trolling... It is a troll tactic to attempt to bait your opponent with a time wasting exercise. Watching an hour long video, or researching something to refute a claim, especially when evidence has already been put forward for our claims... & verified with outside link references... those are definite "troll-sign." |
| krisum Sep 07, 2014 5:08 PM EDT |
@gus3 > SysV init was never forced on anyone, except by management policy. How does it matter to end users? Probably it can matter to distribution creators, but judging by how Slackware and some other distros have kept away from it, there seems nothing forced there either. > BSD and its init were always an option. They still are. It always boils down to the same thing: distros cannot keep up with BSD's init when other programs/services all are using and supporting sysvinit only on Linux. Similarly when majority of programs will shift to systemd as the primary supported init system (if they do so), then it will be difficult for even Slackware and others to stay away from it. |
| krisum Sep 07, 2014 5:12 PM EDT |
@JaseP > Watching an hour long video, or researching something to refute a claim I would agree in general. However, in this particular case the "claim" (about PID1 not being really that special) was nowhere central to that comment. The real question raised was the example therein, which was conveniently ignored by you and others, and instead you continued to attack the uselessness of the video link vis-a-vis the claim to "prove" that he is a troll. Maybe one can take it seriously if you also provide a proper response to his real challenge therein. |
| JaseP Sep 07, 2014 5:31 PM EDT |
I'm not wasting my time on bait... We have cited opinions on systemd and it's problems, as well as our own issues. His "challenge" addresses maybe one, tangential issue with a multi-hour goose chase. An inittab file is a relatively simple file too,... So?!?! His "challenge" only addresses that one minor issue of many that the majority here have with systemd (and not really, either, since the issue was complexity of the system, not complexity of its configuration). Taking his challenge is giving in to a straw-man argument, and ignores the forest for the trees. No thanks. |
| 750 Sep 07, 2014 6:02 PM EDT |
Force is propably the wrong word, bait and switch may be more appropriate, tho not fully. For decades one could swap one init for another because they did their thing pretty much like the user do, fire the required program up via a command line with a minimum of fuss. Systemd on the other had is sprouting APIs like wildfire. The latest now seems to be that Gnome wants to hand its session management over to Systemd. That is going way beyond the scope of any init of old. I'm just waiting for the news that Wayland has been made part of the Systemd source tree, or linked to it via some "central" API... |
| theBeez Sep 07, 2014 6:13 PM EDT |
@krisum
No, sysV is NOT an option anymore. OpenSuSE developers have admitted that systemd is this integrated in their distro, it's becoming very hard (even for them) to revert to sysV. Other (derived) distros have the same kind of discussions on their forums: if the "daddy" gets systemd, it's very hard to stay behind. Somthing you admit yourself by saying": Similarly when majority of programs will shift to systemd as the primary supported init system (if they do so), then it will be difficult for even Slackware and others to stay away from it. So, yes: systemd is forced upon us. No choice. Period. End of discussion. |
| krisum Sep 07, 2014 6:22 PM EDT |
@JaseP > An inittab file is a relatively simple file too,... So?!?! Maybe you could spend a bit more time understanding the example where he tried to show that systemd tries to cater to varied requirements. The features/facilities that can be expressed are quite difficult in init scripts. Text file or complex file was not the point. But then if you didn't see that at all, then "bait", "troll" etc is probably your way of avoiding a response. > ignores the forest for the trees. I have mentioned before in this thread some of the more obvious issues with sysvinit that I see (see my response to Carla above). As I mentioned, given my level of familiarity (limited to what I have read on web/docs etc and some simple examples) I have not much opinion on whether systemd has its own set of problems. One obvious one being that it is trying to do too much. But then that does not negate the claim that it does solve some existing issues. |
| gus3 Sep 07, 2014 6:22 PM EDT |
@krisum, "management policy" means "the init system of whatever Unix version management decided to use." End-users probably don't care, but the sysadmin(s) would have to know the init system well enough. Having been both end-user and sysadmin, I think it's fine & dandy to blame corporate management when the advice sysadmin(s) is summarily ignored. |
| krisum Sep 07, 2014 6:27 PM EDT |
@gus3 > "management policy" means "the init system of whatever Unix version management decided to use." Okay, I thought you were referring to the policy of a Linux distribution. Anyway I don't see how that is any different for systemd. Earlier management policy lead to sysvinit being "forced" and now it could lead to systemd being forced. BSD init remains an available option regardless (and so does sysvinit in Linux assuming Slackware and some other distros continue to stick to it). |
| Ridcully Sep 07, 2014 6:29 PM EDT |
@krisum. Silly ? Nope, a logical deduction from what was posted by the person concerned. I've seen this sort of behaviour far too often and been caught myself in similar circumstances. In addition, no less than three of us saw the "troll" activities of rahulsundaram in the same way, with a fourth "very uninterested onlooker" jumping to exactly the same conclusion after reading the material. QED as far as I am concerned. I am very pleased notbob has also brought out another aspect of one of Rahul's posts: he directly insulted the intelligence of all the people on this thread who opposed his concepts......I also noted that conduct and called it "interesting" while refraining from saying what I would have liked to . You appear to be on the verge of doing the same thing to my daughter's conclusions. Disagree by all means, but nothing else because she cannot speak for herself. I used her example purely because I said nothing to her prior to her read of the thread so that her conclusion was reached totally independently. Tuxchick, you have the right approach.....I'm going to sit back now and enjoy the popcorn. Frankly, the proponents of systemd have now seriously damaged the credibility of the software in my books and the sooner it is gone the better. If it is necessary, then we should have a "new" system initialisation built according to the "open-ness" of traditional Unix standards, not binary blobs. |
| penguinist Sep 07, 2014 6:30 PM EDT |
@albinard: I appreciated your second round of links. After reading through them all, it seems to me that systemd is offering improvements over sysvinit in several areas: 1. concurrent startup -- resulting in faster boot times 2. more features -- as illustrated in rahulsundaram's example 3. a consistent API for applications Having said this, it appears to me that the user resistance is based on a key relevant point: Users (including myself) have a vested interest in assuring and maintaining control of their own system. After all, this is why we are using Linux rather than a closed-proprietary OS. It seems to me that systemd is not as transparent as the system it is intended to replace, and this is causing justified concern. Few users, even those of us skilled to do so, will take the time to review 224,000 lines of code to assure ourselves that we have not surrendered control of our OS. On the other hand, I will often review short sysinitv startup scripts to understand exactly what is being launched into my systems. In my opinion, a group wishing to develop software that sits in such a pivotal position as startup and service management, must of necessity go the extra mile to demonstrate openness in discussions and a willingness to dialog with users. A failure to do this will result in distrust in the user base. |
| krisum Sep 07, 2014 6:30 PM EDT |
@theBeez > So, yes: systemd is forced upon us. No choice. I am saying how is that any different for sysvinit? Was there ever any choice with regards to sysvinit so far (in distros that shipped with sysvinit that is)? Lets take your example of OpenSuSE. It has been shipping with sysvinit since its inception. So how is systemd any more "forced" than sysvinit has so far been? |
| Ridcully Sep 07, 2014 6:49 PM EDT |
Thankyou Penguinist.....very well said and presented. I don't know about 1,2 and 3....but I fully agree with your last three paragraphs. Again, thankyou. |
| JaseP Sep 07, 2014 7:15 PM EDT |
Ditto... |
| theBeez Sep 07, 2014 7:37 PM EDT |
@krisum Most of us started with Windows or DOS - because there was nothing else. Same with sysV - there was nothing else. Now we have systemd, upstart AND sysV. Like gnome, KDE, etc. you'd think we have a choice. Nope. No choice. systemd is forced upon us. I always thought that that was why I switched over. Something with a bazaar and a church or something. No, must have been mistaken. Was a cathedral. Seems to be a good thing. Standardization or something. There can be only one. Gee, heard of another OS that does that even better. Lots of nice, NSA friendly binary blobs and binary logs and config files with fine, bracketed labels. Remember me to check that one out. Good luck and good night. |
| krisum Sep 07, 2014 8:27 PM EDT |
@theBeez > Now we have systemd, upstart AND sysV. So distributions have simply replaced sysv with upstart or systemd etc. What is new about systemd here? It was never possible to have a distribution work against multiple init systems (except for very select few like Gentoo). The daemons that are shipped in a distro will nearly always have scripts compliant with one init system. Compatibility scripts are sometimes maintained but usually only for sometime. This has always been the case for any init system or replacement. |
| krisum Sep 07, 2014 9:10 PM EDT |
@penguinist Good points and well stated, though I don't agree with many of them. > On the other hand, I will often review short sysinitv startup scripts to understand exactly what is being launched into my systems. I am assuming that it is fairly easy to tell from systemd config files what all is being launched and in what order/dependency etc. There appear to be command-line tools like systemctl that will provide that information. If not, then it should certainly be rectified. Given that I don't yet have a full-time system that is completely using systemd, I cannot tell either way as of now. Conceptually reviewing a turing complete language like that of shell scripts is certainly more difficult than config files like in systemd. In the long run it should be overall easier for system admins to go through a bunch of config files than wading through all the scripts. So then it boils down to this: > Few users, even those of us skilled to do so, will take the time to review 224,000 lines of code to assure ourselves that we have not surrendered control of our OS. The code complexity of systemd (at least the perceived one in terms of number of lines of code) is one of the major concerns. Certainly it needs to be much more thoroughly tested than other normal userspace programs, just like the Linux kernel itself needs to be much more thoroughly tested than everything else. That being said, I don't think most users would be in a position to review sysvinit either. For example the large number of functions in /etc/*/function scripts on RH and similar distros. Also the code of sysvinit itself, though it has seen years of testing so that would not be an issue. Besides, I think the number of lines is quite misleading. It includes replacements for many utilities like mount etc. Given that not many users would be in a position to review code for all those utilities or coreutils, I don't think a criticism based purely on that is justified. What does seem to be justified is doubt on developers given their past and current attitude as you hint at in the last paragraph. Edit: As an example, the /etc/systemd/system/syslog.service file on my system looks like this: [Unit] Description=System Logging Service Requires=syslog.socket [Service] Type=notify ExecStart=/usr/sbin/rsyslogd -n StandardOutput=null [Install] WantedBy=multi-user.target Alias=syslog.service Its fairly obvious to tell the configuration and what it is launching. Whether it is correctly doing so is another matter... |
| penguinist Sep 07, 2014 11:41 PM EDT |
@krisum: You probably know that your example syslog.service file is not executable. It is a declarative guide which systemd reads, then the internal systemd code (part of the 224,000 lines) does the launch. To properly review the way things are launched in a systemd environment, it would be necessary to review not only the declaration files, but the systemd executables themselves. Note: on Fedora 20, the /usr/lib/systemd is over 1.2MB in size, and that's just the library. That represents a lot of code to review. Are we sure that the only processes launched are those described in the declaration files? How can we know and verify that? In contrast, on the sysvinit side, the init.d scripts are actually executable and readable. If I want to see exactly how syslog is launched on one of my Centos systems I need only read a 93 line executable script at /etc/init.d/rsyslog, and the 777 line /etc/init.d/functions. So systemd is an unknown entity, too large to be reviewed by system administrators in a reasonable amount of time. Most users, myself included, are unwilling to surrender control of our operating systems to an unknown entity. As I said earlier, systemd is not as transparent as the system it is intended to replace. This deficiency could be fixed I think, but the developers will need to lead the way. Putting answers to your issues makes me appear to be opposed to systemd, which I am not. I see that there are some areas where it is moving us ahead. But there are roadblocks that need to be addressed before the user base will become comfortable with it given the importance of the central roles of startup and service management in our systems. |
| jdixon Sep 07, 2014 11:48 PM EDT |
> t seems to me that systemd is not as transparent as the system it is intended to replace, and this is causing justified concern. It's not transparent. User concerns are being ignored or laughed at. Rather than fixing the (comparatively minor, imo) problems with the current system it throws the whole thing out and starts over from scratch in a non-compatible manner. And it's taking on far more responsibility for the system, again in an non-compatible manner. It breaks the principle of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" big time. |
| frankiej Sep 08, 2014 2:04 AM EDT |
Quoting:No choice. systemd is forced upon us. I always thought that that was why I switched over. Something with a bazaar and a church or something. No, must have been mistaken. Was a cathedral. I realize I am being petty, but the Cathedral and Bazaar referred to the development model of the software, not the availability of choices. Pettiness aside, is systemd taking away choice or are the distributions taking away choice? I am not trying to deflect criticisms away from systemd. I am neither an opponent or proponent of it (I've run both Slackware and Fedora on my laptop and really haven't cared about the init system). The systemd developers wrote something. The distributions didn't have to adopt it. Other software doesn't have to tie in. But it is happening. Why? I trouble believing the systemd developers themselves could force that. <conspiracytheory>Now RedHat forcing this because it suits their enterprise needs is something I could believe.</conspiracytheory> On a related note, last month Martin Gräßlin made a post about kwin-wayland requring logind and states that logind can be run independent of systemd. I just felt his post (this one, not his previous self-trolling post) was an insightful look into why they had the dependency and the benefit provided by logind to KWin on Wayland. |
| krisum Sep 08, 2014 4:24 AM EDT |
@penguinist > Are we sure that the only processes launched are those described in the declaration files? I think that's quite an unjustified criticism. By that token all code of system utilities should be shell scripts and nothing else. Reviewing medium and large shell script is itself not an simple task. Not to mention that you have to assume that shell script itself does not launch more than it says and the host of other utilities it launches. > How can we know and verify that? That holds for all code not just systemd. You have the source and so peer review is the guarantee which is the same as it is for all open source projects. How do you know bash does not execute more than what its script says -- have you verified bash code (its a large beast itself)? How do you know the same about the multitude of utilities in coreutils? How can you say that sysvinit is just launching the shell scripts mentioned in /etc/rc*/* and nothing else? In fact have you actually compared the number of lines of code of all the utilities, scripts that systemd replaces with that in systemd? Given the design, it looks very likely that the number of lines of code in systemd would actually be smaller or equivalent to all those it replaces while still providing many additional features that are required. Yes, one can say that the code is still very young and so less tested, but then that will be true of all new software and nothing unique to systemd. As I mentioned on first glance it looks like systemd is trying to do too much which could be left to other existing utilities which is a valid criticism. However, I would need to look deeper to form an opinion on that. > As I said earlier, systemd is not as transparent as the system it is intended to replace. It seems that the only thing that would make it "transparent" to you is reverting back to using shell scripts because it would somehow give more "power" than simple configuration files. Quite obviously systemd devs do not agree. And you could always move away such systemd utilities where you think would be able to do better than systemd and write own shell scripts instead. Its still a simple job to plug-in your own shell scripts in systemd. I am pretty sure that the amount of code you will need to review to ensure "ExecStart=" does what it purports is very small -- smaller that sysvinit code I suppose. |
| jdixon Sep 08, 2014 6:25 AM EDT |
> Quite obviously systemd devs do not agree. Quite. In fact, I doubt the systemd devs and the boycott systemd folks agree on much of anything. > Its still a simple job to plug-in your own shell scripts in systemd. I am pretty sure that the amount of code you will need to review to ensure "ExecStart=" does what it purports is very small -- smaller that sysvinit code I suppose. Again, if I'm going to opt out of all of it's "features", exactly why am I running systemd? |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 08, 2014 9:32 AM EDT |
Jase, > They are trying to replace something simple (whether broken or not), with something complex. And, there's little to no benefit from doing that. Thank you for that table. While I had the impression which the table articulates, seeing it in cold hard numbers only makes me even more uncomfortable with the change. Sadly, it seems that the change in going to be occurring regardless. My hope is that by spreading it wide the problems are ironed out quickly so people can get back to work. I now look forward to whatever it is that is going to replace systemd. Maybe after the singularity when such things are written by the AI herself. |
| theBeez Sep 08, 2014 9:50 AM EDT |
@krisum "So distributions have simply replaced sysv with upstart or systemd etc. What is new about systemd here? It was never possible to have a distribution work against multiple init systems (except for very select few like Gentoo)." True, but we have a different situation now. Given the controversy, I think it would be a great idea. I don't think it would be that hard to make different packages. On the contrary, I think the resistance against systemd would subside if people were given a chance to simply ignore it if they wanted. Let the bazaar decide. |
| rnturn Sep 08, 2014 10:51 AM EDT |
Quoting:``This makes parallelizing services difficult, and even if someone were to write init scripts that run in parallel, they would be very brittle and a nightmare to maintain in the face of upgrades etc (unless one embeds own dependency logic that is).''Parallel startup scripts was never a really important need until some people got obsessed with this faster startup kick. Which, to me, is about as important as `which OS can format a floppy disk faster' that was the craze in the early days of the PC. Faster startup is only important to a few. (I care about it only when I'm using a laptop, for example, which isn't all the time.) I suspect most people don't really care. Rather than abandoning the traditional sysvinit for something that's not well documented and has insinuated itself into major subsystems of Linux just because someone thinks that parallel startup is absolutely necessary -- and for laptop use that's certainly a nice thing to have -- I'm of the opinion that faster startup would have been better achieved by making the hibernate function more reliable so that a complete reboot wouldn't be necessary. But a developer doesn't make as big a splash by working on something as mundane as that. |
| jdixon Sep 08, 2014 11:09 AM EDT |
> ...just because someone thinks that parallel startup is absolutely necessary -- and for laptop use that's certainly a nice thing to have... My Dell Mini-9 had a 30 second or so boot time back when it shipped with Ubuntu 8.04. It's never been that significant an issue. |
| theBeez Sep 08, 2014 12:33 PM EDT |
@jdixon You're so right. I'm running a six-year old, very tired system and it does 90 secs. That doesn't bother me too much. Booting Windows7 (at least from a network) take MUCH longer. I've seen 20 MINS boot time from a WinXP system (iron, no VM, corporate use). Why? Because I boot once a day, in the morning. It's not an issue, so I don't see why people are focused on it that much - apart from beating MS. Yeah, it's great fun when slapping MS-fanbois, but else.. No, what I'm worried about is how happy SuSE users were when systemd was introduced (https://news.opensuse.org/2011/12/22/systemd- %E2%80%93-boot-faster-and-cleaner-with-opensuse-12-1/) and how much speedier their system got (http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTAxNzA). Adding all that: what exactly is systemd trying solve? I only see LOTS of problems I'm not waiting for. It's like getting an electronic transmission that in the end isn't doing any faster - for what? I can't speed out the garage anyway - that requires me to learn all kinds of different shift positions and additional buttons I'll probably never care to use and on top of it doesn't get out of the first gear. |
| skelband Sep 08, 2014 12:41 PM EDT |
> Besides, I think the number of lines is quite misleading. It includes replacements for many utilities like mount etc Replacement for "mount"? Seriously? <splutters on keyboard> Why on earth would systemd need a replacement for mount? Are you sure? |
| skelband Sep 08, 2014 12:49 PM EDT |
> On a related note, last month Martin Gräßlin made a post about kwin-wayland requring logind and states that logind can be run independent of systemd. I just felt his post (this one, not his previous self-trolling post) was an insightful look into why they had the dependency and the benefit provided by logind to KWin on Wayland. It has always been that Unix and Linux base philosophy is that subsystems co-operate based on standards not on code dependencies. So they use pipes, shared memory, kernel facilities etc. rather than requiring the direct dependency of a specific implementation. The alternative which is called "coupling" in the computing realm is generally felt to be the sign of poor design. It is sad that the youngsters these days seem to be intent on ignoring the sage wisdom of some very clever people from the last 30 years. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 08, 2014 1:31 PM EDT |
Skel, >Replacement for "mount"? Seriously? <splutters on keyboard> Yep. Now you're seeing the violence inherent in the systemd. For example, from http://www.tecmint.com/systemd-replaces-init-in-linux/ o Job Scheduling using systemd Calendar Timers. No more cron. So much for supreme executive powers deriving from a mandate from the masses. o Logs are stored in binary file. No more browsing easily with standard tools on the console through a log to see what went wrong. I said, Be Quiet! o Users login managed by systemd-logind. The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in shimmering samite, brought forth Excalibur from the bosom of the water. That is why I am your King. o Better integration with Gnome for interoperability. Integration with ONE DESKTOP ENVIRONMENT (which I don't use) is being called "interoperability", which is exactly opposite of reality. This is Cathedral thinking at its WORST. Or, "You don't vote for a King!" |
| rnturn Sep 08, 2014 3:35 PM EDT |
Quoting:``...what I'm worried about is how happy SuSE users were when systemd was introduced [snip] and how much speedier their system got...''Not this OpenSUSE user. It might seem faster because the GUI may be up and visible more quickly but there's still seems to be parallel startup tasks running that make the system pokey and difficult to use until they finish. So someone needs to remind me why this was such a great move. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 08, 2014 3:44 PM EDT |
> the GUI may be up and visible more quickly but there's still seems to be parallel startup tasks running that make the system pokey and difficult to use until they finish. That was always an argument against Windows. The Windows boosters would say, "See how quickly the GUI is up?" and the Linux user would point out, "Yes, but you can't DO anything until the rest of the system is finished thrashing." The GUI used to be the _last_ thing started, which meant that when you got it everything else was finished and it was ready to go. Et tu Brute? |
| theBeez Sep 08, 2014 4:23 PM EDT |
@ rnturn If you had followed the links the sarcasm had been quite evident ;-) |
| mrider Sep 08, 2014 4:59 PM EDT |
@ rnturn If you had followed the links and read the comments the sarcasm had been quite evident ;-) (FTFY) |
| Ridcully Sep 08, 2014 7:05 PM EDT |
Dear Everybody, I have just received an unpleasant message via the LXer email site. I will not reveal the author however parts of it were, I consider, a direct attack on me personally simply because I had the temerity to question Rahul's intentions and also that I defended the need to either waste bin systemd or at least improve it dramatically. Normally, I would never take this action, however I am now a trifle annoyed. For the information of people on LXer, I enclose my response to the person below: Dear .............whether he is a troll or not (and that is debatable), Rahul had no right to insult the intelligence of virtually every contributor to that thread. Which he did in black and white. Whether he has been a contributor to Fedora for many years or not has nothing to do with his insulting post. It does however, explain why he is such a devoted supporter of systemd, since my understanding is that systemd is coming directly out of the "RedHat stable". As regards my understanding of systemd, I have already stated bluntly in that thread that I am not a programmer, but I can read discussions and debates on the topic (and there are many of them) regarding what is wrong with systemd. Penguinist gave the best summation I have seen anywhere so far on that thread. Assuming he is correct, then there definitely are aspects of systemd which should be corrected to make them far more open and conform with traditional Unix standards. I find nothing in that activity that says I should not have an opinion on the matter, and if I wish to do so, make that opinion known to others. It has nothing to do with whether or not I am an "aging LXer". Quote: "You and the rest of the aging LXers are simply devastated that much (of) the knowledge you struggled to acquire about the init system has to be revised. And like the classic mob, you follow the loudest voice and turn your back on civility." End of quote. ................., the above quote from your message to me is nothing more nor less than a personal attack on myself and I strongly resent that you have taken my time to read such diatribe. I am always scrupulous in trying to give as little offence as possible to anyone on a thread and in fact have often tried to "remove fuel from the fire" when thread debates became a trifle overheated. Please cease this type of correspondence and any future emails of this type will be ignored. Sincerely Ridcully |
| DrGeoffrey Sep 08, 2014 7:10 PM EDT |
Quoting:Quote: "You and the rest of the aging LXers are simply devastated that much (of) the knowledge you struggled to acquire about the init system has to be revised. And like the classic mob, you follow the loudest voice and turn your back on civility." End of quote. Repulsive. Simply, repulsive. Said quote says much about the author, and none of it positive. |
| BernardSwiss Sep 08, 2014 7:56 PM EDT |
skelband wrote: I think Skelband is getting at the essential core of the problem quite well, here. It seems to me that this "coupling" is arguably the intractable point that most of the contention reduces to, and which outwardly manifests in different ways. |
| skelband Sep 08, 2014 8:49 PM EDT |
> You and the rest of the aging LXers are simply devastated that much (of) the knowledge you struggled to acquire about the init system has to be revised. And like the classic mob, you follow the loudest voice and turn your back on civility. It seems to me that I have not seen a reasoned answer to the issue of coupled dependencies inherent in the systemd design. This is just the kind of childish response one expects from someone who just won't listen to the experience of decades of good design practice. The innards of Linux really could do with a lot of rework for more consistent and architected design. From what I can see of systemd, however, what is proposed is well organised lunacy. Even upstart has the advantage of trying to develop a replace for init, and *only* init. You do not improve the design with large monolithic components sprawling their way across the system. To the inexperienced, it gives the cosy glow of consistency while creating an unmodular monster. I'm all in favour of experimenting with different designs for init... or any other component for that matter, but systemd has all the hallmarks of a coup of the Linux infrastructure. |
| Scott_Ruecker Sep 08, 2014 9:13 PM EDT |
Unfortunately this thread has gotten far to negative in its interactions. I am sorry but I am closing this thread from further posts. Closing threads does not make me proud and it reflects on me badly in that I have let this happen in the LXer discussion boards when it could have been avoided. I am sorry. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!