LinuxQuestions.org

LinuxQuestions.org (/questions/)
-   Slackware (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/)
-   -   slackware and systemd (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/slackware-and-systemd-885228/)

fl0 06-08-2011 10:55 AM

slackware and systemd
 
Hi @all,

fedora 15 and i think the next opensuse change the init system to systemd, is there a plan to do this in slackware also?

Or when not, why not?(please no flames)

rgds fl0

andrewthomas 06-08-2011 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fl0 (Post 4380024)
why not?

The question is why.

brianL 06-08-2011 11:04 AM

Well, one of the Slackware Team doesn't seem too keen on systemd:
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...ml#post4379271
:)

Beelzebud 06-08-2011 11:05 AM

It's from the same guy that brought us Pulse Audio, so call me skeptical of the need for it. I took a look at the docs for the Arch Linux package for it, and it seemed like a lot of effort to arrive right back where I started.

55020 06-08-2011 11:48 AM

Let me summarise. systemd is exactly the sort of thing a one-club golfer would come up with if he had extraordinarily deep C skills, no systems administration experience, no historical perspective, and didn't consult anyone who might spoil the illusion.

What is needed out there is something that is

well evolved to fit its niche (which the bsd/sysvinit mechanisms are, and systemd/upstart aren't yet and won't/*can't* match until 40 years have passed),

universally understood (which the bsd/sysvinit mechanisms are, and systemd/upstart aren't yet and won't/*can't* be until 40 years have passed),

simple to the point of triviality and hammered millions of times a day, so it is utterly reliable (which the bsd/sysvinit mechanisms are, and systemd/upstart aren't yet and won't/*can't* match until 40 years have passed),

stable and unchanging, and therefore needing minimal maintenance (which the bsd/sysvinit mechanisms have been for 40 years, whereas who's to say that systemd/upstart will still be recognisable ten years from now? Remember when hal was the new panacea, huh?)

highly hackable for weird and unpredicatable ad-hoc requirements under extreme time pressure at three in the morning using lowest common denominator knowledge and tools, while everyone around you is screaming at you and losing their sanity (which the bsd/sysvinit mechanisms are, and systemd/upstart are not).

That's for starters. Anything else?

volkerdi 06-08-2011 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fl0 (Post 4380024)
Hi @all,

fedora 15 and i think the next opensuse change the init system to systemd, is there a plan to do this in slackware also?

Or when not, why not?(please no flames)

rgds fl0

Let's just switch to any crazy idea Lennart can come up with.

---
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
-- Henry Spencer

Phorize 06-08-2011 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by volkerdi (Post 4380112)
Let's just switch to any crazy idea Lennart can come up with.

---
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
-- Henry Spencer

I heard that, my computer boots, why do I need a new boot process?

volkerdi 06-08-2011 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kristizz (Post 4380118)
I heard that, my computer boots, why do I need a new boot process?

Well, the problem with using shell scripts in the boot process is that it goes through a lot of PIDs, and it would be "less ugly" to arrive at a usable machine state with a PID in the hundreds, or lower. If everything has to break in order to achieve that, it seems like a good trade. Eventually all the broken stuff will be fixed, right?

I think that's the basic rationale. And maybe shave a few more seconds off boot time, but who boots much (or cares)? My servers and desktops remain on, and my laptops are usually on, suspended, or hibernated. I would prefer a reliable and well-understood boot system like the one we have.

My primary concern is that the systemd cabal is going to be pushing it as a dependency wherever possible, but we'll deal with that if it happens. But if any major distributions do actually release using systemd, the world will be stuck with it forever. If that's the case, I hope it turns out to be a good idea...

fl0 06-08-2011 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by volkerdi (Post 4380112)
Let's just switch to any crazy idea Lennart can come up with.

---
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
-- Henry Spencer

so i assume there is no plan to integrate systemd in slackware... and there is no way to discuss this on a non flame way...

GazL 06-08-2011 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by volkerdi (Post 4380112)
Let's just switch to any crazy idea Lennart can come up with.

Not every idea he has is crazy. The ideas behind a tmpfs /run directory for use in the initrd/early userspace seemed to make a lot of sense. Can't say I like much else of what he's come up with though.

BrZ 06-08-2011 01:10 PM

Another 'friendly' layer pushed by Red Hat, Novell, Intel, Nokia and other corps. The thing seems unfinished... Felt it coming, but not so soon.

(No flames. Just my mind floating around.)

jpkirchner 06-08-2011 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by volkerdi (Post 4380130)
....My primary concern is that the systemd cabal is going to be pushing it as a dependency wherever possible, but we'll deal with that if it happens. But if any major distributions do actually release using systemd, the world will be stuck with it forever. If that's the case, I hope it turns out to be a good idea...

I did read that "systemd has since been proposed as an external dependency of GNOME 3.2 by the project's author.This would essentially require all distributions that use GNOME to use systemd, or at least include it as a configurable option."

Of course, I do not use Gnome so not worried in that respect...

My computers work just fine with Slackware the way it is...tried and true...

sahko 06-08-2011 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 55020 (Post 4380082)
Let me summarise. systemd is exactly the sort of thing a one-club golfer would come up with if he had extraordinarily deep C skills, no systems administration experience, no historical perspective, and didn't consult anyone who might spoil the illusion.

What is needed out there is something that is

well evolved to fit its niche (which the bsd/sysvinit mechanisms are, and systemd/upstart aren't yet and won't/*can't* match until 40 years have passed),

universally understood (which the bsd/sysvinit mechanisms are, and systemd/upstart aren't yet and won't/*can't* be until 40 years have passed),

simple to the point of triviality and hammered millions of times a day, so it is utterly reliable (which the bsd/sysvinit mechanisms are, and systemd/upstart aren't yet and won't/*can't* match until 40 years have passed),

stable and unchanging, and therefore needing minimal maintenance (which the bsd/sysvinit mechanisms have been for 40 years, whereas who's to say that systemd/upstart will still be recognisable ten years from now? Remember when hal was the new panacea, huh?)

highly hackable for weird and unpredicatable ad-hoc requirements under extreme time pressure at three in the morning using lowest common denominator knowledge and tools, while everyone around you is screaming at you and losing their sanity (which the bsd/sysvinit mechanisms are, and systemd/upstart are not).

That's for starters. Anything else?

55020 is officially my hero.
After the best post i've ever read anywhere on the internet about dependency resolution, now this. Thank you!

55020 06-08-2011 02:42 PM

@sahko :redface: thanks, but what Mr Volkerding and the real Slack experts write, when they find time to do so, is always more insightful, more informed, more balanced, and (usually) more polite. However, they make better use of their spare time (for example) playing golf, instead of being grumpy on the Net. And they're right to do that.

imitheos 06-09-2011 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by volkerdi (Post 4380130)
I would prefer a reliable and well-understood boot system like the one we have.

+1

Systemd doesn't seem to provide the advantages necessary to justify the change (at least yet). I don't get the obsession of some people with boot times and why some major distributions change vital system components so easily without good reason. What's even worse is that these components become "standard" and then other distributions are forced to use them too.

I don't say that nothing should ever be changed. Progress is good and changes are required from time to time, but not change things just to change them.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:48 PM.