The Zorro syndrome
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| kikinovak May 16, 2015 7:16 AM EDT |
Quote from the article: "The point here is to illustrate that, contrary to popular belief, it’s not just the opponents with their annoying ranting about the “Unix philosophy” and technical incredulity who are wrong, but that just about everyone involved in arguing is clueless in one way or another." During my literature studies here in South France, I often stumbled over similar introductions. I ended up calling these the Zorro syndrome. "Until now, everybody involved has been completely clueless and blindly stumbling in the dark. Now I'm riding along on my white horse, and I'm bringing you the truth and the light." Usually, this is where I stop reading. :o) |
| jdixon May 16, 2015 10:24 AM EDT |
I though Zorro rode a black horse? Ah, Wikipedia says that it has varied over the years, but the original was black. |
| flufferbeer May 16, 2015 5:19 PM EDT |
@jdixon >> Ah, Wikipedia says that it has varied over the years, but the original was black. On black, I think the the controversial Henry Ford once said “"People can have the Model T in any color - so long as it's black." Similarly, the controversial Lennart Poettering and his supporters might say "Linux users can have any init system they want on their machines - so long as these include systemd by DEFAULT." :O 2c |
| kikinovak May 16, 2015 6:05 PM EDT |
You're right. I googled "zorro horse", and there's a majority of black horses on Google Images. |
| cybertao May 16, 2015 9:56 PM EDT |
I like systemd.
After reading all the confusing FUD produced by both supporters and detractors (which is what the author of the article is talking about) I compiled the systemd branch of LFS to see what the deal was. The deal is, it works. Despite what people say for or against, systemd is not really a big deal. The overreaction (Devuian! WTF?) to it is wildly disproportionate. It's like when everyone moved from using pre-generated character files in /dev to dynamically populating them (using udev, a part of systemd) all over again. |
| jdixon May 16, 2015 10:46 PM EDT |
> The overreaction (Devuian! WTF?) to it is wildly disproportionate. Not if you start from basic principles which systemd violates. > (using udev, a part of systemd) Udev predates systemd, and udev solved real problems. Even then, it's initial implementation left a lot to be desired, and it took quite a while get it working well. The "problems" systemd solves are mostly in the imaginations of its proponents and given Poettering's programming history, I wouldn't bet on it ever working well. |
| cybertao May 16, 2015 11:55 PM EDT |
> Not if you start from basic principles which systemd violates. “Yoonax phoolawsaphay” Yeah, that article nails it. |
| tuppp May 17, 2015 1:03 AM EDT |
jdixon wrote:Not if you start from basic principles which systemd violates. cybertao wrote:“Yoonax phoolawsaphay” Yeah, that article nails it. Actually, it's fundamental wisdom that has been passed down through the ages and which applies to all endeavors -- don't put all of your eggs in one basket. The arrogant kids pushing systemd don't seem to understand this basic, common-sense principle that has stood Unix/Linux in good stead all these decades. Hopefully, they won't learn this rudimentary lesson the hard way. |
| cybertao May 17, 2015 2:17 AM EDT |
Those d@mned kids, getting all up in your Unix. |
| tuppp May 17, 2015 2:44 AM EDT |
cybertao wrote:Those damned kids, getting all up in your Unix. Typical sloppy reasoning from a systemd-tard -- I use Linux, not Unix, kiddo. Furthermore, as you probably are unaware, your beloved systemd works only on Linux and not on Unix. |
| cybertao May 17, 2015 3:18 AM EDT |
'arrogant kids', 'systemd-tard', 'your beloved systemd'. Yeah, that article nailed it. Systemd 'discussions' turn into vitriolic turf warring. |
| 750 May 17, 2015 3:31 AM EDT |
Quoting:It's like when everyone moved from using pre-generated character files in /dev to dynamically populating them (using udev, a part of systemd) all over again. Udev was a independent project for a decade before being rolled into systemd, apparently so the devs could avoid "code duplication". The problem with systemd is not how it does init, but that it does so much more than init (and more seems to be added every day). The scenario ends up being that you have some thing you want fixed. Oh there is a new version (or replacement program) that does fix your issue. But it depends on A, that depend on B, that depend on C, that in turn depend on something within the systemd shoggoth. And so you end up either forgoing the fix or perform a init-ectomy on a otherwise perfectly functioning system. This because the systemd devs can't keep their interfaces stable. |
| tuppp May 17, 2015 3:41 AM EDT |
cybertao wrote:'arrogant kids', 'systemd-tard', 'your beloved systemd'. Let's see... "Devuian! WTF?," "Yoonax phoolawsaphay," "Those damned kids, getting all up in your Unix." Gee! I wonder which side started it? These discussions invariably come to the juncture in which the systemd supporters can never directly respond to inconvenient facts. So, early on, the systemd folks have to rely solely on ridicule and mockery. |
| cybertao May 17, 2015 4:41 AM EDT |
tuppp wrote:Gee! I wonder which side started it?You did, with the assertion it's 'arrogant kids' pushing systemd (who clearly don't understand basic, common-sense principle that have stood Unix/Linux in good stead - know as "worse is better"). You could at least try to make some points like 750 has, even if they turn into abstract, hypothetical situations with little basis and no practical example. Pro-systemd and anti-systemd will never get along, like the article states. The staunch, zealous members of both sides have taken something practical and made it a religious feud. Worst still, the anti-systemd zealots are maliciously praying for systemd to fail. Systemd has been used in Arch for years. It's proven itself on Fedora and has been working in Debian Jessie. It excels in VPS application. Those wanting to stick with developing non-systemd distributions and forks should do so, just stop being so bitter and hateful about it. |
| JaseP May 17, 2015 5:17 AM EDT |
One of the major issues is that systemd proponents are always saying, "if you don't like systemd, fork it..." Which begs the question of whether that was the systemd opponents point in the first place... Basically, if you don't want it in your given distribution (for which you may have been developing for a couple of decades), you have to take on the enormous task (exponentially increasing as systemd swallows more projects) of removing systemd components and solving dependencies where systemd is now the "law of the land." It's not being bitter and hateful to point out that someone urinated in your cornflakes... There's a great breakdown of the arguments at the following blog: http://judecnelson.blogspot.com/2014/09/systemd-biggest-fall... Also, there's a great wiki which links to it... http://without-systemd.org/wiki/index.php/Arguments_against_... Between the two, it explains the situation pretty nicely. You'll get plenty of technical reasons and practical examples of why systemd is a terrible idea (that we are apparently stuck with,... like it or not). |
| kikinovak May 17, 2015 6:04 AM EDT |
Folks should agree on the meaning of a basic sentence like "It works". Some folks are happy if their systemd-based installation "works", e. g. they can boot, have a shell, do some stuff. Other folks use this stuff on a production server under heavy load, and when the darn thing goes belly up and refuses to reboot, they spend a whole weekend trying to figure out what went wrong, instead of joining their pals to a climbing trip in the mountains. The only help they get is the systemd folks explaining to them that it works on *their* home PCs. Now all my servers, desktops and workstations are running Slackware again, I sleep soundly at night, and I go climbing on weekends. No more "technology previews" and other nonsense for me. |
| jdixon May 17, 2015 7:38 AM EDT |
> You did, with the assertion it's 'arrogant kids' pushing systemd You're the one who replied “Yoonax phoolawsaphay”. And completely ignored my correction of your falsehood about udev. You're a liar and a jerk (the latter moderated down since this is a family friendly site). |
| jdixon May 17, 2015 7:44 AM EDT |
> (that we are apparently stuck with,... like it or not). Well, there's always FreeBSD. But I think a fork will happen, whether Poettering and Red Hat like it or not. And let's not forget that Red Hat is a company. If their customers reject systemd, they'll drop it. And if systemd is on par with PulseAudio, that may very well happen. |
| jazz May 17, 2015 10:58 AM EDT |
> cybertao: > I like systemd. After reading all the confusing FUD I also like Windows. Did you notice how parallel everything starts? Or how nice the binary logger is? Or the confusing FUD... Nice try Lennart! |
| cybertao May 17, 2015 4:39 PM EDT |
jdixon wrote:You're the one who replied “Yoonax phoolawsaphay”. And completely ignored my correction of your falsehood about udev. You're a liar and a jerk (the latter moderated down since this is a family friendly site).Since you seem to have missed it, that was a direct quote from the article. jdixon wrote:Not if you start from basic principles which systemd violates.An off the cuff statement where you mention no specific principles or elaborate on how systemd breaks them, and likely don't call them out on other projects. The exact sort of bullshit the article calls out. Udev was not a falsehood because it was folded into systemd. I mentioned it because there was the exact same reaction towards it as there is systemd. Turns out it wasn't so bad after all, and these days is maintained like many other components under the systemd umbrella. Something that's not admitted by the detractors; systemd is not one big blob that does many things. First and foremost it's and init replacement, with daemons (such as consoled, journald, networkd, timedated) available but not mandatory. With exceptions such as GNOME requiring logind and therefore systemd, which is something to take out on GNOME instead of systemd if it's a problem. But hey, just carry on with calling me a liar, jerk, and Lennart. Call me a witch and burn me at the stake if it helps keep your milk from curdling. |
| BernardSwiss May 17, 2015 5:51 PM EDT |
If you aren't already familiar with those basic principles (a.k.a. "design philosophy"), upon which unix-type operating systems (including Linux) are built, then perhaps your dismissive response was rather premature? |
| notbob May 17, 2015 7:38 PM EDT |
@BenardSwiss Thank you for posting such a well mannered response. That way I don't hafta go bat guano ballistic in the response I started to write. ;) |
| seatex May 17, 2015 7:49 PM EDT |
> That way I don't hafta go bat guano ballistic in the response I started to write. ;) Darn it. I was actually looking forward to reading that. ;-) |
| jdixon May 17, 2015 8:33 PM EDT |
> Since you seem to have missed it, that was a direct quote from the article. No kidding, Sherlock. Too busy being a jerk to even make up your own comments I see. > An off the cuff statement where you mention no specific principles or elaborate on how systemd breaks them.. My comment didn't require explanation. If systemd breaks basic principles that people hold, whatever they may be, then the reaction is not disproportionate. But there was no need to go into specifics about those principles because everyone here already knows them.. The fact that you don't simply means you're not qualified to comment on the matter. > Udev was not a falsehood because it was folded into systemd That wasn't what you said. You said "a part of systemd" with the obvious implication that it had always been so. But go ahead, keep lying. > But hey, just carry on with calling me a liar, jerk, and Lennart. And you can't even follow posts. I didn't call you Lennart. Or perhaps you're lying again rather than just being stupid? > Call me a witch and burn me at the stake if it helps keep your milk from curdling. I've known witches. They're better people than you are. They didn't lie as a matter of course. I can tolerate people liking something I don't. I can tolerate people making misinformed decisions. I can tolerate people making software I don't like. I won't tolerate having that software shoved down my throat, and I can't tolerate ignorant, arrogant, lying jerks who think they know more about Linux than I and the others here do. |
| jdixon May 17, 2015 8:35 PM EDT |
> That way I don't hafta go bat guano ballistic in the response I started to write. ;) That's OK, not bob, I think I'm doing enough of it for both of us. :( But cybertao is managing to push all my buttons. |
| flufferbeer May 18, 2015 6:06 PM EDT |
@jdixon, ++1 ! >> That's OK, not bob, I think I'm doing enough of it for both of us. :( But cybertao is managing to push all my buttons. Seems to me that fanboi cybertao is ALREADY retreating from his or her systemd salesmanship! from cybertao May 17, 2015 01:56 UTC "Despite what people say for or against, systemd is not really a big deal. The overreaction (Devuian! WTF?) to it is wildly disproportionate." then on May 17, 2015 03:55 UTC " “Yoonax phoolawsaphay” Yeah, that article nails it." then on May 17, 2015 06:17 UTC "Those d@mned kids, getting all up in your Unix." then on May 17, 2015 20:39 UTC "But hey, just carry on with calling me a liar, jerk, and Lennart. Call me a witch and burn me at the stake if it helps keep your milk from curdling." (Watch him or her go ahead and dig h-self a hole and proving the EXTREME DEGREE of systemd jerkiness) 2 more c's |
| cybertao May 18, 2015 6:34 PM EDT |
jdixon wrote:> Since you seem to have missed it, that was a direct quote from the article.Being called a lying jerk is better than proving myself as a humorless jerk One who doesn't need to qualify his statements as everyone who already agrees with him are the only ones worthy. jdixon wrote:> Udev was not a falsehood because it was folded into systemdUdev is a part of systemd. It's maintained by the nice folk of the systemd project for you. I guess you are opposed to udev on that basis? jdixon wrote:I can tolerate people liking something I don't. I can tolerate people making misinformed decisions. I can tolerate people making software I don't like. I won't tolerate having that software shoved down my throat, and I can't tolerate ignorant, arrogant, lying jerks who think they know more about Linux than I and the others here do.I can tolerate people disliking something I don't. I can tolerate people making misinformed decisions. I can tolerate people making software I like. I won't tolerate having that software repressed, and I can't tolerate ignorant, arrogant, lying jerks who think they know more about Linux than I and the others here do. See? I can preach from the position of an arrogant, puritan @ss-hat as well; it doesn't achieve much though. Major distributions are still using or switching to systemd despite your rabid opposition utilizing sweeping statements. I suggest you either move with the times or move aside. |
| seatex May 18, 2015 6:43 PM EDT |
> (maybe cybertao really IS a jerk?) I think he just affirmed it. |
| flufferbeer May 18, 2015 6:50 PM EDT |
@seatex, > I think he just affirmed it. Yep. from May 18, 2015 22:34 UTC "Major distributions are still using or switching to systemd despite your rabid opposition utilizing sweeping statements. I suggest you either move with the times or move aside." ...guess I was a bit premature to write > Seems to me that fanboi cybertao is ALREADY retreating from his or her systemd salesmanship! :/ -fb |
| jdixon May 18, 2015 9:44 PM EDT |
> See? I can preach from the position of an arrogant, puritan @ss-hat as well; You had already demonstrated that with your original posts. > Major distributions are still using or switching to systemd despite your rabid opposition utilizing sweeping statements. I suggest you either move with the times or move aside. My opposition isn't rabid. Your support appears to be though. And at least one major distro isn't, and won't until it proves it's ready to the developer's satisfaction. Fortunately, that's the one I use. And even if it does and I decide I don't like it, I have options. I can always get a copy of Linux from Scratch or even switch to one of the BSD's. But you wouldn't know anything about either of those things, would you? And finally, if I'm forced to use a software system I don't like, I might as well go whole hog and just use Windows. I'm sure that would make Poettering and Red Hat oh so happy. I really need to find those share certificates for the Red Hat stock I own. I'm thinking it's probably at or near it's peak and it might be time to sell. |
| cybertao May 19, 2015 12:06 AM EDT |
jdixon wrote:And even if it does and I decide I don't like it, I have options. I can always get a copy of Linux from Scratch or even switch to one of the BSD's. But you wouldn't know anything about either of those things, would you? cybertao wrote:I like systemd. After reading all the confusing FUD produced by both supporters and detractors (which is what the author of the article is talking about) I compiled the systemd branch of LFS to see what the deal was. The deal is, it works.It's quite telling how you perceive yourself as an authoritative superior who's opinion has more weight than those who don't agree with you. |
| jdixon May 19, 2015 4:21 AM EDT |
> It's quite telling how you perceive yourself as an authoritative superior who's opinion has more weight than those who don't agree with you. As I noted on another site in another thread: Projection at it's finest. I'm not the one trying to force people to use software they don't like. Of the many factual points that have been raised, you've raised only one factual refutation; and that's that udev has now been absorbed by systemd. And you state that as if it's a good thing rather than the excellent example of the problems with systemd opponents consider it to be. |
| Fettoosh May 19, 2015 9:52 AM EDT |
There is no last revolution, there always is a new one. Be happy |
| 750 May 19, 2015 1:00 PM EDT |
Quoting:even if they turn into abstract, hypothetical situations with little basis and no practical example.If only. We already see inklings of it in how Gnome requires Logind to handle various stuff, and Logind in turn demands that the init is systemd. You just need to go one tier up, where you have something that depends on some Gnome functionality and you got yourself a shit storm. |
| tuppp May 19, 2015 3:13 PM EDT |
750 wrote:If only. We already see inklings of it in how Gnome requires Logind to handle various stuff, and Logind in turn demands that the init is systemd.What gets me is that all of these interdependencies are so unnecessary -- they are clearly intended as arbitrary lock-ins to prevent choice. Here is thoughtless fearless leader himself pushing for the Gnome lock-in in May, 2011. |
| caitlyn May 19, 2015 4:35 PM EDT |
You know, I do this stuff professionally, on production servers. Now that I'm supporting RHEL 7.x and clones and starting to use Debian 8 as well I have no complaints with systemd. It does work under heavy load and makes administration a much easier task once you know how it works. No puppies have died, there hasn't been a zombie apocalypse, and the major enterprise distros all use it now. It's here to stay. You don't like it? Fine, use one of the little distros that doesn't have it. I'm really tired of this tempest in a teapot. |
| tuppp May 19, 2015 6:18 PM EDT |
caitlyn wrote:No puppies have died, there hasn't been a zombie apocalypse, and the major enterprise distros all use it now. Nor have there been puppy deaths or a zombie apocalypse with Windows and OSX, and major enterprises use both. But I wouldn't use either of those OSs unless I had to... would you? caitlyn wrote: It's here to stay. Well, let's wait and see what happens once the s#!t starts hitting the fan. caitlyn wrote:You don't like it? Fine, use one of the little distros that doesn't have it. Channeling Marie Antoinette much? Seeing on how you think that it is an okay alternative to give up and just use one of the "little distros," why don't we just reverse the scenario -- let's restrict systemd to just the "little distros" for you and the rest of the systemd users, and let's make all of the "big distros" non-systemd. Certainly, you would have no problem with that, right? |
| cybertao May 19, 2015 6:36 PM EDT |
jdixon wrote:I'm not the one trying to force people to use software they don't like.No one is forcing you to use it. You are free to go elsewhere since you detest systemd so much. Speaking of facts, you still haven't presented any. Only your opinion that systemd 'violates basic principles'. Instead of lashing out at me, which won't achieve anything regarding the adoption or rejection of systemd (or change anyone's opinion of it), here's an opportunity to impart your wealth of knowledge on the unwashed. There is no definitive list of principles. List the three most important to you, explain how systemd violates each of them, and summarize why it's so doomed to fail you'd rather jump ship. |
| caitlyn May 19, 2015 7:53 PM EDT |
The response I received is typical. Look, not only has that horse left the barn but it's two counties away. The debate is over except in the minds of Linux hobbyists. It's been in production long enough now that I can safely say nothing is going to "hit the fan." You want to restrict systemd use? How will you dictate to Red Hat, SUSE, Canonical, Debian et al? To even imply that could be done is insanity. Do you know why systemd exists? It solved problems for enterprise customers, and they drive Linux. Like it or not Linux is big business and it runs big business. |
| jdixon May 19, 2015 9:17 PM EDT |
> Fine, use one of the little distros that doesn't have it. Little distros, Caitlyn? The last I checked, it was still the oldest existing distro and had a loyal following. > No one is forcing you to use it. No thanks to you and those like you. > Speaking of facts, you still haven't presented any. Where did I say "that I posted"? However, the readers are free to peruse the above posts and decide for themselves. > There is no definitive list of principles. Links were provided above. It's not my fault you're not capable of reading them. > ...and summarize why it's so doomed to fail you'd rather jump ship. Where did I say it's doomed to fail? > Look, not only has that horse left the barn but it's two counties away. The debate is over except in the minds of Linux hobbyists. As long as there's a hobbyist oriented distro that will be fine. I don't care who else uses systemd. I don't want or need a system tuned for server farm work. > Like it or not Linux is big business and it runs big business. It's also open source and can be forked. And there are probably enough hobbyists to do so. Or I can always use Windows or OSX. That would be a shame, but it won't be the first time something good has been lost. If I'm going to be forced to use bad software, I might as well use the most popular bad software. And I still need to sell that Red Hat stock. |
| tuppp May 20, 2015 2:14 AM EDT |
The thing about horses that have left the barn is that once the horse smells the barn, he rushes back to it. The debate isn't over, and a lot of sysadmins are against systemd. For those who smugly claim that they have not experienced any problems and that there will be no future problems, have fun with your updates and systemd's constantly changing goals. The scenario about reversing systemd to the "little distros" was hypothetical, but, from the reaction it is evident that systemd supporters can certainly dish it out but they wouldn't be able to take it. They can dictate that others be satisfied with fewer choices, but they can't admit that they would be very unhappy if the situation were reversed. Systemd exists because of Poettering, Red Hat and Gnome, and it should have stayed confined in that world. The Debian Tech Committee vote was 50/50 and systemd won on a technicality. Unfortunately, all Debian derived distros had to fall in line. Systemd only solves problems that are only in the minds of its supporters. |
| kikinovak May 20, 2015 6:37 AM EDT |
Noah's ark was the work of a hobbyist, whereas the Titanic was a full-blown professional project. |
| 750 May 20, 2015 7:23 AM EDT |
Yay, seems big money rolled in... |
| jdixon May 20, 2015 8:11 AM EDT |
> Yay, seems big money rolled in... Big money itself isn't the problem. Anyone can use Linux for any purpose they choose. Big money that wants full control of everything, otoh.... |
| penguinist May 21, 2015 9:25 AM EDT |
caitlyn wrote:The debate is over except in the minds of Linux hobbyists. Sorry Caitlyn, but while this may be true from the perspective of the organization you are working with, it is certainly not true in either of the two organizations with which I am working. Both have made the decision to stay with rhel/centos version 6 specifically because of the systemd issues. The systemd discussion is hardly over in either the "hobbyist" or the "enterprise" worlds. |
| NoDough May 21, 2015 1:40 PM EDT |
caitlyn wrote:...there hasn't been a zombie apocalypse... That's just what a zombie would say! :) |
| skelband May 22, 2015 5:09 PM EDT |
This big debate about systemd is not about whether it does a good job or not.
It is about the dependency architecture of systemd and how it relates to the rest of the infrastructure. Saying that is fixes real problems for business and "works" is hardly the point. If I write unmodular code, then it matters not if it does the job. Code that is monolithic and sits in the middle of a dependency hell restricts the development and evolution of the whole system. The real test of this is how easy it is to replace systemd with a competing component. Many of the distros that are adopting systemd are finding that they have little choice. In this one respect, systemd and its chums really worry me. |
| BernardSwiss May 23, 2015 10:50 PM EDT |
Found this today -- would have been worth posting on the main feed, but it's from December. It takes a brief but decently even-handed look at the systemd dispute (and he has some actual idea what Unix Design Philosophy is actually about). Jamie's Mostly Linux Stuff: Systemd: Navigating through the quagmire http://www.zdnet.com/article/stepping-into-the-systemd-quagm... |
| notbob May 24, 2015 12:24 PM EDT |
> You know, I do this stuff professionally.... You know what, caitland, .....I DON'T!! I'm a lowly "hobbyist". You know, the same kinda people who actually brought you Linux. Now that Linux has attracted big business in a big way, you say we hobbyists should jes step aside and let big $$$$ take it from here. Sorry. Linux was created by "hobbyists" and I hope will -- in some way-- retain hobbyist access. That's not to say big biz cannot do what they want, but if $$$$ attempts to steal away this open source choice. there WILL be "hobbyist" resistance. I can dump a monolithic Linux jes as readily as I dumped a monolithic Windows. Besides, we're about due for a new fully open OS paradigm. I can't think of a quicker way to precipitate such a possibility than to hijack the last one and lock it down. ;) |
| mbaehrlxer May 25, 2015 12:26 AM EDT |
skelband wrote:The real test of this is how easy it is to replace systemd with a competing component. that's a very interesting aspect of the discussion. let's compare: linux kernel: unless you use specific kernel features, you could run your applications on *bsd. debian/kfreebsd demonstrates how replaceable the kernel is. many tools have some alternative, so they are all more or less replaceable. X11: well, here is where it starts to get interesting. while replacements are being worked on, there isn't really any alternative to X11 yet. now how replaceable is systemd? well, obviously it is just replacing a bunch of stuff that still exists, but if we assume that that will go away (unmaintained, bitrot, etc) and if we accept that more and more apps will depend on systemd, we are getting something that is about as hard to replace as X11. is that a good thing, or a bad thing? i don't know. time will tell. however, apart from replacing the whole thing, there is also the aspect of replacing parts. in the linux kernel, for example, i guess most drivers can easily be replaced. with X11 i have no idea. was there any effort to clean up the codebase to make components replaceable? and systemd? they say, it's many binaries, and some can be replaced if i want to. well, time will tell.. greetings, eMBee. |
| tuppp May 25, 2015 12:17 PM EDT |
mbaehrlxer wrote:... if we accept that more and more apps will depend on systemd, we are getting something that is about as hard to replace as X11. That is a decidedly bad thing. We don't need time to tell us that. |
| gru May 26, 2015 11:18 AM EDT |
I think most of us can agree that everyone would be fine with systemd and the improvements it brings to the table if its architecture resembled sysv. No hard dependencies, modular, plain-text, etc. Nobody is denying that the sysvinit was showing its age, and something new needed to be introduced. Nobody is saying that Upstart was any more of a likely candidate. No one is opposed to what systemd proposes to fix. Like skelband said, it's a question of developer decisions about architecture and the way those decisions have affected the greater Linux ecosystem. Sadly, some of the systemd proponents have a solid point... and that is that systemd has gained a huge amount of momentum in distro adoption and thus in user mindshare. As of right now, it is still possible to use sysvinit, but that is becoming less and less of a possibility as its market shrinks. The only way to make Red Hat, Canonical, and the Debian Tech Committee listen is for users to not use their product. These heated debates can happen all day, every day but these people only care about numbers (specifically number of users/customers). If that number hasn't changed, then to them there's nothing to worry about, and it really hasn't to a great degree. At this point, if you want to stick it to systemd, you have to go to Slackware, Devuan, or a BSD and you have to do it en mass. Whether this is a tempest in a teapot or a full-blown ideological schism is up to the systemd opponents. I for one wish that a compromise could have been made in systemd's design, and the community was able to unite behind a common goal and infrastructure and really drive the Linux market forward, but it's not a perfect world, and we're all just doing our best here. |
| 750 May 26, 2015 12:57 PM EDT |
Best i can tell the serious customers, at least in the RHEL case, are pulling a wait and see. 6.x will be maintained by RH for some years yet, and most (traditional) sysadmins are content with sticking 7.x on test systems (so far the results are "mixed", but that can be because RH stuck with a older systemd release that they are backporting patches for) and waiting it out. At this point in time what seems to be selling systemd is the integration of containerization features, and the resulting pandering to the devops approach to server/cloud/app (groan) maintenance. In the end it is looking like another case of "if all you have is a hammer, every problem is a nail". With containers being that hammer... |
| notbob May 26, 2015 5:50 PM EDT |
> you have to go to Slackware, Devuan, or a BSD and you have to do it en mass. .....or Gentoo or LFS. Myself, I'm studying to make a run at LFS. Right off, I like LFS. Why? Choice!! LFS currently offers a systemd option AND a non-systemd option. It's up to the user. That's the way all distros should be. ;) |
| kikinovak May 26, 2015 7:10 PM EDT |
LFS = Linux From Slack :o) |
| jdixon May 26, 2015 8:36 PM EDT |
> At this point, if you want to stick it to systemd, you have to go to Slackware... Go to? Some of us never left. |
| cybertao May 26, 2015 10:02 PM EDT |
notbob wrote:Right off, I like LFS. Why? Choice!! LFS currently offers a systemd option AND a non-systemd option. It's up to the user. That's the way all distros should be. ;)LFS gives you the choice because you compile everything yourself. Gentoo gives you the choice as well. For binary distributions that choice would involve maintaining two versions of certain packages, where the upstreams may not support alternatives. For Debian, at least (I don't know about other distributions), there is still the option of using sysvinit-core if you avoid things such as GNOME. |
| flufferbeer May 27, 2015 1:21 AM EDT |
>> For Debian, at least (I don't know about other distributions), there is still the option of using sysvinit-core if you avoid things such as GNOME. Thank you, oh lord master cybercoder, for deigning to grant us user-slaves the very meagerest morsel of freedom to keep and use sysvinit-core as we wish to in at least Debian. We obediently bow ourselves to kiss your feet and thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you.... ::incredible sarcasm:: ;D -fb Now we wait for the inevitable response from our verbally abusive systemd-salesperson TROLL. And sure enough, here it is.... |
| cybertao May 27, 2015 1:41 AM EDT |
It's nothing to do with me, everyone has freedom of choice and systemd hasn't taken that away. Don't want to use systemd? Then don't. |
| kikinovak May 27, 2015 4:36 AM EDT |
I'd like to invite a systemd proponent to the restaurant. As soon as the waiter brings our food to the table, I'm going to take a cr@p all over my guest's plate. He will stare at me in utter bewilderment. I will shrug it off and inform him that he's still free not to eat the ingredients he doesn't like on his plate. |
| cybertao May 27, 2015 4:57 AM EDT |
If sh*t is the only thing systemd opponents bring to the table, other diners enjoying their meal are better off without them. |
| jdixon May 27, 2015 7:50 AM EDT |
Ah, I see the lying jerk is back. > Don't want to use systemd? Then don't. I won't. As I said, If I'm going to be forced to use software I don't like, it might as well be Windows or OSX. |
| kikinovak May 27, 2015 7:56 AM EDT |
@cybertao: you didn't get the message. Poettering and Sievers brought indeed a new init system to Linux. Which is a good thing. Now why do they have to spread their mess all over Linux in places where it doesn't belong? Hence my analogy. Add to that the fact that Lennart is a jerk, no more no less. Hearing this guy talk, I wouldn't trust him with mowing my lawn, let alone build an init system for the servers I depend on for my work. I know this is ad hominem, but I can't help it. |
| seatex May 27, 2015 8:22 AM EDT |
> "Ah, I see the lying jerk is back." (systemd fanboy troll) > "Add to that the fact that Lennart is a jerk..." (systemd and PulseAudio developer) A pattern emerges. |
| cybertao May 27, 2015 9:00 AM EDT |
jdixon wrote:If I'm going to be forced to use software I don't like, it might as well be Windows or OSX.Go on then, do it already. Cut your nose off to spite your face and see how many people notice or care. |
| kikinovak May 27, 2015 5:16 PM EDT |
Just a little reminder why staying with Slackware, Crux, Gentoo or Alpine Linux is a safe bet. https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=76935 |
| jazz May 27, 2015 7:59 PM EDT |
I've already told you: cybertao is Lennart. He's taking everything personally, so he is either payed to make a full of himself, or he is Lennart. Why would anybody pay this guy, I have no idea. Probably it works on windows forums... I still think he is Lennart! |
| cybertao May 27, 2015 11:09 PM EDT |
You've failed the Turing test, Jazz. Who do you think pays out rope to me through the windows until I'm full? |
| BernardSwiss May 27, 2015 11:22 PM EDT |
> I've already told you: cybertao is Lennart. I don't think so -- after all, wouldn't Lennart at least make some actual arguments, along the way? In any case, though he might have no use for them, Lennart Poettering at least would have some idea what the basic Unix design principles are. Read back through cybertao's posts in this thread; it seems pretty clear that this guy is just a common troll. (Please stop feeding him.) |
| jdixon May 28, 2015 12:00 AM EDT |
> Go on then, do it already. Cut your nose off to spite your face and see how many people notice or care. But didn't you just tell me not to use systemd if I didn't want too? Note: See lying jerk above. For someone who doesn't notice or care, you seem to complain about my choices a lot. In any case, Slackware isn't forcing me to use software I don't like. When it does, I'll worry about switching. |
| cybertao May 28, 2015 1:38 AM EDT |
jdixon wrote:But didn't you just tell me not to use systemd if I didn't want too? Note: See lying jerk above.You can use Linux without systemd. However, you've been chucking your toys out of the cot and 'threatening' to just use Windows or OSX instead. Which you should just go and do instead of being such a diva. |
| cybertao May 28, 2015 1:49 AM EDT |
BernardSwiss wrote:Lennart Poettering at least would have some idea what the basic Unix design principles are.Since jdixon won't personally provide three examples of principles important to him and specify how systemd contravenes them, perhaps you'd like to have a crack. Since you talk about the Unix design principles you must be able provide an authoritative list you base decisions for software you are willing to use or rebuke on. Until then, “Yoonax phoolawsaphay”. Like the article says. |
| jdixon May 28, 2015 8:03 AM EDT |
> You can use Linux without systemd. And I do, and will. As long as I have the option to do so. When I don't, it's time to leave. > However, you've been chucking your toys out of the cot and 'threatening' to just use Windows or OSX instead. If I'm forced to use software I don't want to, yes. But you left that part out, didn't you? Note: See lying jerk above. > Since jdixon won't personally provide three examples of principles important to him and specify how systemd contravenes them... I'm not your personal secretary. If you want me to research things for you that you're obviously not capable of researching yourself, my fee would be $100/hour. |
| gru May 28, 2015 10:37 AM EDT |
@cybertao, I'll cite at least three principles since I needed to read them anyway. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy#Do_One_Thing_an... Rule Of Modularity: Systemd contravenes this principle through its use of binary logs enabled by default (well known interfaces). Rule of Composition: Systemd fails to comply with this principle because of the way it hijacks the "debug" command-line parameter from the kernel. Rule of Simplicity: Systemd has far too many interdependencies and external dependencies to be considered compliant to this principle. Let's try to remember this, Systemd is salvageable and has some pretty interesting features included in it. The problem is Lennart Poettering and Kay Sievers and their "cavalier" attitude toward bug reports and (at first) constructive criticism regarding design choices such as binary logs and hard dependencies for gnome and various other downstream projects. Listen, the distros probably have their reasons for choosing Systemd over Upstart or OpenRC, but that doesn't mean they have to wholeheartedly condone all of the Systemd team's choices or demeanor toward the community. Can I at least get you to admit that you never want to see a reply like Kay Sievers' when you report a bug (and that seriously is a BUG) for one of the most important pieces of software on your computer next to the kernel itself? I'll even admit that the rest of the Systemd opponents on that bug report hurt the discussion more than they helped. |
| number6x May 28, 2015 12:34 PM EDT |
@gru, In simple terms I think that I understand what you are saying and can suggest a real world test that would tell if a piece of software followed the Unix philosopy. Can it easily be swapped for a better alternative? For example, less and more. The old unix command, more, let users page through large files. less provides the same functionality, and so much more (pun intended). Because both less and more were modular, simple and fully composed , they could easily be swapped. You could delete the more in /usr/bin and replace it with a link that points to /usr/bin/less, and everything would continue to work, but users would get all of the benefits of less! Your criteria would imply that systemd is broken, unless or until, it can easily be swapped for an alternative init system. If it were designed with the unix philosophy, it would be a only a minor effort for system builders to replace init or upstart with systemd. (You would then probably have no complaints and never think about it.) It would not be a trivial replacement, but its modularity and simplicity would reduce dependencies and make it not too complex to do so. Also, and this is the most important thing I think, when a better init system is developed in 10 years or so, it would be easy to reaplace systemd with the newer better init system. As it is, we are going to be stuck with systemd for a long time (even when vastly superior init systems are available). Think of how long it took to replace X! Sadly, as you point out, systemd is not built following these principles, and is therefore broken. It may work perfectly well and it may have a gajillion-zillion wonderful features and may make a mean cappucino as well, but until it is easily replaced, it is flawed. Do I understand what you are trying to say? |
| jazz May 28, 2015 12:45 PM EDT |
> I don't think so -- after all, wouldn't Lennart at least make some actual arguments, along the way? Apparently he gets offended when you call him Lennart. It is the first time I see a systemd troll offended by this. They usually worship him. He must be Lennart. |
| gru May 28, 2015 12:57 PM EDT |
@number6x You got it. It might well be a very efficient and useful piece of software, but it's the implementation and peripheral considerations that make the prospect of fully committing to it dubious. I guess my biggest complaint about it was that it was designed in such a way that it can only thrive at the expense of other init systems and the utilities they use, and it was pitched to downstream projects (Gnome) as an all-or-nothing choice without the notification of and consent from the larger community. To top it off, whenever the dev team was presented with some constructive suggestions and questions of design choices, they displayed a level of disregard that no serious FOSS developer should ever have for his/her own users, even if they disagree with the criticism. No matter how important you think your project is, you never break previously existing functionality in the kernel-space and then just tell a downstream developer to accommodate your questionable design decisions in their project. It's just not good community stewardship, and it reflects a lack of maturity and character that you would hope to see in an init development team. |
| cybertao May 28, 2015 5:03 PM EDT |
What about glibc then? There are alternatives, such as uClibc, but many applications depend on the functionality only glibc provides. Is glibc broken? Are all the apps requiring it broken? Do people who applying that standard to systemd also apply it to glibc and those apps? What about proprietary binary blobs running in kernelspace? They aren't easily replaceable, can abuse privileges, and crash the OS. Do you guys apply get all Stallman-esque by applying the same water-test and disabling WiFi? |
| gru May 28, 2015 5:23 PM EDT |
I'm not a Stallman-ite(?). I just think that some of the Unix Philosophies are good practice and a best effort should be made. Obviously Linus doesn't practice this for the kernel, and the glibc and X teams do not either, but that doesn't mean we should apply those exceptions to all new software introduced as FOSS. Let's take your argument and reverse it real quick. The Linux kernel, Systemd, glibc, and X are all monolithic binaries that are difficult (if not impossible) to interchange. If it's okay for them, then it's okay for all other applications to be built the same way. Do you see how this is also not a good thing? We're not trying to go full Stallman, but we're also not trying to go full Poettering either. What I'm saying is that more consideration for the community should have been observed when the system was designed, and I don't have to condone or condemn the Linux kernel or glibc to ask this of the Systemd dev team. |
| cybertao May 28, 2015 6:31 PM EDT |
gru wrote:Let's take your argument and reverse it real quick. The Linux kernel, Systemd, glibc, and X are all monolithic binaries that are difficult (if not impossible) to interchange. If it's okay for them, then it's okay for all other applications to be built the same way. Do you see how this is also not a good thing?The thing is, systemd is not an application. It's a service layer, one that takes full advantage of the features available in Linux and glibc. As kikinovak suggested earlier, anyone who feels strongly about the subject should consider using Alpine. |
| gru May 28, 2015 10:53 PM EDT |
Alpine looks pretty good. Still seems a bit new, and for such as small distro, 338 active bugs is still a hard pill to swallow for some desktop users, let alone production servers. If Systemd truly ends up being a nuisance, then there are still alternatives (for now). If it doesn't end up being a nuisance, then I guess people will either fork or find a new normal. |
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!