LinuxQuestions.org
Welcome to the most active Linux Forum on the web.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices

Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 11-05-2013, 01:17 PM   #1
Daedalos
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2013
Location: Kansas
Distribution: Slackware 14.1 64bit Multi-lib
Posts: 22

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Anti-Systemd... how can we improve sysvinit?


I read both of the threads (in entirety) of how many people are opposed to systemd.

I am still learning Slackware (I am not what I would call an expert yet), and I enjoy/respect everything about it. The simplicity is superb, and its capabilities/power make you feel like a ruler of your box.


I would hate for systemd to ruin what I have come to love in Slackware.


If you don't like systemd, if you want to stick with "old school" then start brainstorming ways to improve upon sysvinit to give it a "new life" without sacrificing it.

If everyone just sits around complaining about Systemd it WILL happen.
It will slowly but surely take over the linux universe.

Does this mean systemd is better? NO

But does it mean that it has more people who are behind the vision of selling it?

Yes.

In short we do not need 15,000 threads flaming the creation of systemd, rather we need every developer who hates it to come together and figure out a way for sysvinit to be updated, or modernized (without losing it's original essence) so it can be sold as the BETTER alternative to SystemD.

Complaining will get you no where.

Brainstorming ideas for making what you love better WILL.

Competition breeds cooperation.


If you hate Systemd enough, maybe it is time for a rebel alliance.

If you do not want Systemd to be the future of linux maybe it is time to come up with a revisioned version of sysvinit or something better based upon it.


Otherwise there is no reason to complain.

It would be great if we could start a list of changes that sysvinit would benefit from.

Last edited by Daedalos; 11-05-2013 at 01:23 PM.
 
Old 11-05-2013, 01:24 PM   #2
ruario
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2011
Location: Oslo, Norway
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,812

Rep: Reputation: 817Reputation: 817Reputation: 817Reputation: 817Reputation: 817Reputation: 817Reputation: 817
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daedalos View Post
If you don't like systemd if you want to stick with "old school" then start brainstorming ways to improve upon sysvinit to give it a "new life" without sacrificing it.
It doesn't need to be improved. It works just fine. The reason that Slackware could switch to systemd has nothing to do with systemd being better or worse. If a switch happens it will simply be because many of the core components have come to depend on it. Making a better sysvinit will not change anything, since these core components will still depend on systemd.

Just give it a rest and see how things play out.
 
6 members found this post helpful.
Old 11-05-2013, 01:43 PM   #3
Daedalos
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2013
Location: Kansas
Distribution: Slackware 14.1 64bit Multi-lib
Posts: 22

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruario View Post
It doesn't need to be improved. It works just fine. The reason that Slackware could switch to systemd has nothing to do with systemd being better or worse. If a switch happens it will simply be because many of the core components have come to depend on it. Making a better sysvinit will not change anything, since these core components will still depend on systemd.

Just give it a rest and see how things play out.
When Systemd starts becoming more "useful" (irregardless or how badly it functions or what features it takes away)
it will replace sysvinit. I think that is what Mr. Volkerding was trying to say.

So if sysvinit is not modernized eventually it will be antiquated beyond the ability of keeping it in slackware.

I think Linus sums it up pretty well:

Quote:
Any program is only as good as it is useful.
Linus Torvalds
When sysvinit stops becoming "useful" to the linux community as a whole
it will become antiquated.

The Model T worked great too.

But.... now we have:

--Self driving vehicles
--Vehicles that go 300mph
--Electric vehicles that have no emmissions
etc...

Just because it "works" does not mean it cannot be expanded upon.

Last edited by Daedalos; 11-05-2013 at 01:51 PM.
 
Old 11-05-2013, 01:50 PM   #4
astrogeek
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2008
Distribution: Slackware: 12.1, 13.1, 14.1, 64-14.1, -current, FreeBSD-10
Posts: 1,743

Rep: Reputation: 597Reputation: 597Reputation: 597Reputation: 597Reputation: 597Reputation: 597
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daedalos View Post
If you don't like systemd, if you want to stick with "old school" then start brainstorming ways to improve upon sysvinit to give it a "new life" without sacrificing it.

If everyone just sits around complaining about Systemd it WILL happen.
It will slowly but surely take over the linux universe.

Does this mean systemd is better? NO

But does it mean that it has more people who are behind the vision of selling it?

Yes.

In short we do not need 15,000 threads flaming the creation of systemd, rather we need every developer who hates it to come together and figure out a way for sysvinit to be updated, or modernized (without losing it's original essence) so it can be sold as the BETTER alternative to SystemD.
So, exactly what aspect of Sys V needs to be "updated"? What problem needs to be solved? ... What is deficient about Sys V? ...

I have a new idea! Binary is old and outdated and too simplistic! We should all come together and build a new foundation for computing based on a better idea! Ternary! Or even quad-nary! The new ternary logic CPU with 75 bit words is the wave of the future!

Two valued logic is too restrictive, we need three or four - or even five if you are really visionary!

... "new" is not necessarily better, and "old" is not necesssarily outdated.

We should build "new" on top of solid foundations instead of spending everyone's time rebuiding a perfectly solid and well tested foundation just for the sake of... what?

Last edited by astrogeek; 11-05-2013 at 01:54 PM.
 
4 members found this post helpful.
Old 11-05-2013, 01:55 PM   #5
Daedalos
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2013
Location: Kansas
Distribution: Slackware 14.1 64bit Multi-lib
Posts: 22

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by astrogeek View Post
So, exactly what aspect of Sys V needs to be "updated"? What problem needs to be solved? ... What is deficient about Sys V? ...

I have a new idea! Binary is old and outdated and too simplistic! We should all come together and build a new foundation for computing based on a better idea! Ternary! Or even quad-nary!

Two valued logic is to restrictive, wee need three or four - or even five if you are really visionary!

... "new" is not necessarily better, and "old" is not necesssarily outdated.

We should build "new" on top of solid foundations instead of spending everyone's time rebuiding a perfectly solid and well tested foundation just for the sake of... what?

Then maybe that is how it should be done.

I am not arguing about the method of implementation or if Sys V itself should be modified.

I am simple making the statement that if nothing is done to rival Systemd that eventually it will
take over in some form or another no matter how much complaining takes place.


Either SysVinit will innovate or become antiquated.

Also I never put forth ideas for the specific reason that I am not capable enough to be making suggestions.

What I am saying however is that instead of complaining this energy could be better
spent to see if a innovation can be made in junction with Sys V or to Sys V to place it
in more competition with SystemD.

This does not even mean copying what SystemD does in features.

It just means adding features that are unique, beneficial, and/or wanted to gain more interest in continuing
its use with different distros of linux.

A nice side benefit is having something that works even better than the original that is still the original.


What is the worst consequence? Moving to systemd anyway?

Who would not agree that Intel and AMD's rivalry in the past has driven the development of processors?

Why can it not be the same with Systemd and Sys V?

Last edited by Daedalos; 11-05-2013 at 02:04 PM.
 
Old 11-05-2013, 02:09 PM   #6
ruario
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2011
Location: Oslo, Norway
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,812

Rep: Reputation: 817Reputation: 817Reputation: 817Reputation: 817Reputation: 817Reputation: 817Reputation: 817
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daedalos View Post
Just because it "works" does not mean it cannot be expanded upon.
Expanding on it sounds like OpenRC. To quote parts of the Wikipedia article OpenRC is a dependency-based init system that works with the system provided init program, normally /sbin/init. It adds, so called modern features, like Parallel service startup, Dependency based boot-up, Process segregation through cgroups, Stateful init scripts, etc.

However as I mentioned above, improving sysvinit entirely misses the point. Don't believe me?

Quote:
Originally Posted by volkerdi View Post
Since I can't imagine any future scenario where it's no longer possible to use sysvinit, but OpenRC works, it is doubtful that OpenRC will ever be a solution here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReaperX7 View Post
Truth be told, if Patrick did have no choice but to switch to a different init system from BSD-SysV, I'd vote for OpenRC long before I'd even THINK about systemd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by volkerdi View Post
If that happens, the choice will be whatever will be likely to cause the least future trouble, such as requiring yet-another init change due to a collapse of support for the current choice. Don't see that ever being OpenRC, sorry.
Volkerdi is not looking for a better init. He is not even looking for a new init (Slackware has one and it works). If a change is forced, the selection criteria is highly dependent on not having to change again, which likely means going with that works with the rest of the normal Linux components and is widely used. To put that in perspective, you might also want to consider this final "tounge in cheek" response from our BDFL.

Quote:
Originally Posted by volkerdi View Post
Let's not have another one of those threads, OK? Save it for when we switch to systemd.

Last edited by ruario; 11-05-2013 at 02:12 PM. Reason: Improved the wording of the first paragraph
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 11-05-2013, 02:12 PM   #7
Daedalos
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2013
Location: Kansas
Distribution: Slackware 14.1 64bit Multi-lib
Posts: 22

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by ruario View Post
This sounds a lot like OpenRC. To quote parts of the Wikipedia article it is a dependency-based init system that works with the system provided init program, normally /sbin/init. It adds, so called modern features, like Parallel service startup, Dependency based boot-up, Process segregation through cgroups, Stateful init scripts, etc.

However as I mentioned above, improving sysvinit entirely misses the point. Don't believe me?







Volkerdi is not looking for a better init. He is not even looking for a new init (Slackware has one and it works). If a change is forced, the selection criteria is highly dependent on not having to change again, which likely means going with that works with the rest of the normal Linux components and is widely used. To put that in perspective, you might also want to consider this final "tounge in cheek" response from our BDFL.

Yea I read that. I was just responding to everyone in the threads.

To be honest like others I am more reliant on the BDFL decisions. (Even though Systemd would be a major downer).

I was speaking to everyone who was complaining.

/End
 
Old 11-05-2013, 02:13 PM   #8
solarfields
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2006
Location: Outer Shpongolia
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 464

Rep: Reputation: 116Reputation: 116
where did all these systemD discussions spawn from...? Slackware boots the same way it did, right? Did I miss something?
 
Old 11-05-2013, 02:15 PM   #9
Daedalos
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Nov 2013
Location: Kansas
Distribution: Slackware 14.1 64bit Multi-lib
Posts: 22

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by solarfields View Post
where did all these systemD discussions spawn from...? Slackware boots the same way it did, right? Did I miss something?
FUD
 
Old 11-05-2013, 02:19 PM   #10
ruario
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2011
Location: Oslo, Norway
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,812

Rep: Reputation: 817Reputation: 817Reputation: 817Reputation: 817Reputation: 817Reputation: 817Reputation: 817
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daedalos View Post
I was speaking to everyone who was complaining.
You are starting a thread that doesn't need to be started. We have too many already.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solarfields View Post
where did all these systemD discussions spawn from...? Slackware boots the same way it did, right? Did I miss something?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daedalos View Post
FUD
Pretty sure his question was along the lines of "Why did you start another pointless thread?". The correct answer was, "Sorry, I shouldn't have done that. I'm new here!".

EDIT: I'll quote this again because I feel like you still haven't quite taken it in:

Quote:
Originally Posted by volkerdi View Post
Let's not have another one of those threads, OK?
P.S. Sorry if I come across overly critical. Welcome to LQ and let me add that it is admirable that you start your time here trying to improve things. Unfortunately, you were unlucky and picked the wrong topic. The regular posters are bored to death of discussing systemd.

Last edited by ruario; 11-05-2013 at 02:28 PM.
 
4 members found this post helpful.
Old 11-05-2013, 02:23 PM   #11
solarfields
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2006
Location: Outer Shpongolia
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 464

Rep: Reputation: 116Reputation: 116
Quote:
FUD
this stands for "Fear, uncertainty and doubt"?

mhm... harsh times have come upon us (brought by systemD). The (open source) world is in chaos. Many (developers) have run amok. Our only hope lies in one man: the BDFL of Slackware!
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 11-05-2013, 02:25 PM   #12
astrogeek
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2008
Distribution: Slackware: 12.1, 13.1, 14.1, 64-14.1, -current, FreeBSD-10
Posts: 1,743

Rep: Reputation: 597Reputation: 597Reputation: 597Reputation: 597Reputation: 597Reputation: 597
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daedalos View Post
Yea I read that. I was just responding to everyone in the threads.

I was speaking to everyone who was complaining.

/End
So, where, in what thread, here or elsewhere (other than Opointer), was ANYONE complaining about Sys V init?

The ONLY "complaining" that I have seen is in response to those pushing systemd into our otherwise peaceful LQ space...

When you poke someone with a sharp stick, you cannot call their reaction a complaint!
 
3 members found this post helpful.
Old 11-05-2013, 03:36 PM   #13
jtsn
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2011
Location: Europe
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 803

Rep: Reputation: 354Reputation: 354Reputation: 354Reputation: 354
Another one trolling with a fake account, could we just close this thread?
 
3 members found this post helpful.
Old 11-05-2013, 03:45 PM   #14
jkirchner
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2007
Location: West Virginia
Distribution: Mint 17
Posts: 582

Rep: Reputation: 135Reputation: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtsn View Post
Another one trolling with a fake account, could we just close this thread?
I certainly agree. I am tired of seeing all these threads about systemd. I'll worry about it if it ever shows up in Slackware.

Rurario said it well:

Quote:
P.S. Sorry if I come across overly critical. Welcome to LQ and let me add that it is admirable that you start your time here trying to improve things. Unfortunately, you were unlucky and picked the wrong topic. The regular posters are bored to death of discussing systemd.

Last edited by jkirchner; 11-05-2013 at 03:47 PM.
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 11-05-2013, 04:01 PM   #15
dugan
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: Canada
Distribution: distro hopper
Posts: 4,614

Rep: Reputation: 1415Reputation: 1415Reputation: 1415Reputation: 1415Reputation: 1415Reputation: 1415Reputation: 1415Reputation: 1415Reputation: 1415Reputation: 1415
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtsn View Post
Another one trolling with a fake account, could we just close this thread?
I don't want to make accusations here, but the coincidence of having two very vocal SystemD proponents show up at around the same time was not lost on me.

Last edited by dugan; 11-05-2013 at 04:32 PM.
 
2 members found this post helpful.
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Debian To Replace SysVinit, Switch To Systemd Or Upstart jeremy Linux - News 0 10-28-2013 02:03 PM
SysVinit vs OpenRC vs systemd vs other init system cristi92b Linux - Newbie 2 01-07-2013 03:02 AM
What are the advantages/disadvantages of using systemd versus sysvinit? ReaperX7 Linux - General 11 10-22-2012 10:22 AM
LXer: Debian testing a systemd-to-sysvinit converter LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 08-20-2012 05:20 PM
[SOLVED] Timeout of mount /home directory during boot (systemd and sysvinit) JZL240I-U Linux - Software 3 12-22-2011 11:02 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:10 PM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration